On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:58 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 19/12/2012 14:44, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 19.12.2012 14:21, Rémi Després wrote: >>> Could we limit the 6man discussion to the question asked by Softwire, >>> i.e. whether new IID types can be defined, using u=g=1, with a first >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Sorry, I'm not yet aware of a concept called IID _types_? >> Do we really have such a thing "IID types"? > > I think that's an important point. If we could make a statement like > > "The IID consists of N bits that have no meaning; the only constraint Hmm.. how would this work with RFC5453 reserved IID space we already have for anycast addresses? - Jouni > is that they must be unique within the scope of a given link and > routing prefix." > > then perhaps we could move forward. Today, the u and g bits are the > only ones that make the previous statement untrue for N=64, I believe. > > This would require formally updating RFC 4291, which says: > For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary > value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be > constructed in Modified EUI-64 format. > > s/required/recommended/ might be enough. Why is it "required" anyway? > > Brian > >> >>> If the answer is positive (as it seems it can be), restarting a >>> discussion on the 4rd design is unnecessary. That is only if the >>> answer is negative that Softwire will have to restart working on the >>> subject. >> >> Obviously, this question has further implications, so I >> think it's legitimate to ask whether the proposed solution >> is really a reasonable way of solving the problem. >> >> Regards, >> Roland >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> [email protected] >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
