>>>But, unless there is an actual problem with the design the IETF has >>> adopted, I am reluctant to change it "just because". >> >> i know. ipv6 is perfect, widely deployed, and unchangable. i hope we >>all like v4 nat. > >I can find many reasons to remove the magic from the U and G bits. I >personally ran into the U/G bit issues in RFC 4380 (Teredo) and RFC 6052 >(IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses). In both cases, the design would have been >simpler if we had not try to maintain the fiction of the U and G bits. >And CGA could definitely benefit from 2 additional bits of entropy. So >this is not a change "just because."
=> +1 on CGA and Teredo. I never agreed/understood the need for u/g bits. The concept was flawed IMHO. I respect the questioning of timing but on principle those two flags are a bad idea. Hesham > >-- Christian Huitema > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
