Hi, Am 06.02.2013 14:52, schrieb Rémi Després: > 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."
As it turns out now, this assumption is probably no longer true. > - 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. I was talking more about implications on new/forthcoming/updated implementations. Do they need to keep a list of reserved IIDs and check against them? This seems to be a bad idea IMHO. We have no clear rules for this yet. > - The reserved range is a tool to AVOID conflicts. It isn't, like > DAD, a tool to RESOLVE them when they occur. That's exactly my point: what should future implementations do in order to avoid such conflicts? In case that they are not using 4rd, MUST they exclude this IID range? Regards, Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
