Brian,

(a) The fact that IEEE MAC addresses are recycled by some vendors is well 
understood.
Please be sure I don't ignore it.

(b) I am also well convinced that u=1 isn't a "mathematical guarantee" of 
uniqueness. 


To me, what is important is agreeing that the 4rd IID range makes sense. 
(Despite my understanding that the point I had made below isn't contradictory 
with (a) and (b) above, I see no point in arguing more about it.)

Thanks,
RD


Le 2013-02-05 à 15:36, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> a écrit :

> 
> On 05/02/2013 14:11, Rémi Després wrote:
>> Le 2013-02-05 à 15:01, [email protected] a écrit :
>> 
>>>> With these specifications, it is impossible on a SLAAC link that two hosts 
>>>> that have universal-scope addresses (necessarily different if they 
>>>> communicate at the MAC layer), would have conflicting IIDs at the IP layer 
>>>> if they derive them from MAC addresses.
>>> Impossible if the MAC addresses are indeed unique. That is correct for
>>> *almost* all cases. But not 100%.
>> 
>> They are different 100% of cases at the IP layer if they are different at 
>> the MAC layer (which is needed for communication at this layer).
>> OK?
> 
> Not if the same MAC address appears on two different subnets in the same
> site.
> This would work from a conventional IPv6 point of view, but it would
> immediately demonstrate that the u bit does not mathematically guarantee
> uniqueness.
> 
> There has been discussion recently in MIF of scenarios where the same
> IID would appear intentionally on different interfaces of the same device.
> 
> 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.)
> 
>   Brian
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to