Bob, It seems the general discussion on u/g-bits clarification is going to be long.
Fortunately it also appears, for instance in the following, that compatibility of the 4rd IID-range with the IPv6 addressing architecture doesn't depend on this work being completed. 2013-02-05 15:36, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> : ... > It is not the process of generating IIDs that is a problem - that is > well defined. It is assuming after they have been generated that the > u/g bits have meaning that is problematic. (Which is also why > the > solution of a reserved range makes sense for 4rd.) Unless I missed something conclusions that the 4rd IID range DOES NOT conflict with the IPv6 addressing architecture have been expressed by Brian Carpenter, Joel Halpern, Sheng Jiang, Gang Chen, and myself. Several opinions against a 4rd-range reservation have also been expressed, but they concern the purpose of 4rd, or its experimental status, or personal feelings against one more specification. They are not about technical compatibility with the IPv6 addressing architecture. Keeping the 4rd answer separate from the general u/g bit discussion will permit, I hope, to now finalize this answer asap. Best regards, RD > Brian > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
