2013-02-04 10:41, Fernando Gont <[email protected]> : > On 02/04/2013 06:11 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> >> It depends on what is done with the new design, especially if it is backward >> compatible and optional. >> >> The question that started this discussion is whether reserving a currently >> unused IID range having u=1 is compatible with the IPv6 addressing >> architecture (i.e. RFC 4291). >> AFAICT, the answer is YES. > > I believe that the original question really was "whether it makes sense > to reserve an unused IID range for 4rd".
A 4rd reserved range, for 4rd activation to never require IPv6 renumbering, has been for long in the specification studied in Softwire. Here is what Suresh said in the question to 6man: "There were some concerns raised in softwire about whether such addresses are actually compatible with the IPv6 addressing architecture. Whether this is actually compatible with the IPv6 addressing architecture is outside the scope of the softwire wg. Hence we would like to hear the 6man wg's perspective on this." > As noted by Ran Atkinson, since 4rd is an experimental document, it > seems more appropriate to separate a *shared* range for this kind of > experiment, rather than assign an IID range to 4rd. As already answered to Ran: "Making the reservation for one design, experimental or not, is a guarantee that no future design with conflict with it, experimental or not." If you disagree, please explain. In any case, this comment isn't about compatibility of the 4rd range with the IPv6 addressing architecture. Regards, RD > > Thanks, > -- > Fernando Gont > SI6 Networks > e-mail: [email protected] > PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
