Dear Rémi, Am 06.02.2013 11:13, schrieb Rémi Després: > This is, in my understanding, what should be avoided in 6man, a debate on > new 4rd modifications: > - The 4rd design has been stabilized for long in Softwire. > - The question to 6man is ONLY whether the proposed reserved range is > compatible with the IPv6 addressing architecture.
This isn't totally decoupled: - if someone asks to introduce a "new format"/magic bits into the IID, my answer is: "this is bad for the IPv6 addressing architecture" - if someone asks to reserve a larger range in the IID space my answer is: "this is bad for the IPv6 addressing architecture", because it is unclear what implementations should do with these specially reserved IIDs and how conflicts are resolved. It may be "compatible" with the current IPv6 addressing architecture, but it's a bad idea. - Furthermore, your solution should IMHO not solely rely on testing the "IID format" or range, as there are probably more robust and reliable solutions as I pointed out. Regards, Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
