2013-02-06 à 13:07, "Bless, Roland (TM)" <[email protected]> :

> 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"

As already said, the 4rd range only makes a first use of an existing RFC4291 
provision:
"The use of the universal/local bit in the Modified EUI-64 format identifier is 
to allow development of future technology that can take advantage of interface 
identifiers with universal scope."

New, indeed, but nothing magic.


> - 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.

- Once more: existing implementations have NOTHING to do (as long as they don't 
add 4rd support).
Expressed doubts on this should be justified by a detailed technical 
justification.
If you have any, let's look at it.

- The reserved range is a tool to AVOID conflicts. It isn't, like DAD, a tool 
to RESOLVE them when they occur. 
 
> - 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.

This doesn't concern "compatibility with the IPv6 addressing architecture".

Regards,
RD




> 
> Regards,
> Roland
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to