On 31 Jan 2013, at 13:11 , Rémi Després wrote: > What ensures 4rd doesn't conflict with ILNP isn't at all > that ILNP only uses u=0. > > It is that, in ILNP, no u=g=1 is used in *unicast* addresses > (those whose IIDs are specified by RFC 4291).
This is still inaccurate. I REALLY would be greatly obliged if you would not speculate about ILNP on IETF/IRTF mailing lists, primarily because any speculation is likely to be wrong -- and create needless confusion amongst other folks on those lists. Some published ILNP papers talk about a form of multicast addressing/routing that we believe is novel and are exploring. This combines a unicast routing prefix in the high-order 64-bits with an IEEE EUI-64 compliant (and RFC-4291 compliant) multicast group ID (i.e., U=G=1) in the low-order 64-bits. Because of existing IETF standards-track work where U=0, for example CGAs or "privacy" addresses, the U=0 identifier space (i.e., U=0 and G=1) can NOT be used for multicast identifiers. So the proposed 4rd reservation of all (or most) uses of addresses with the combination of (A) U=G=1 identifier space and (B) unicast routing prefix is a direct conflict with published ILNP papers and active ILNP work. Both ILNP and 4rd are Experimental, at least today. This is why I tabled the possibility of allocating a small portion of the U=G=1 space under RFC-3692 shared experimental use rules. That would permit multiple experiments to proceed, and is the usual IETF custom for experimental work when a limited protocol-registry resource is involved. Yours, Ran -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
