Le 2013-02-06 à 22:12, Roland Bless <[email protected]> a écrit : ... > >> Nothing new needs to be done in any implementation other than that of a >> 4rd-supporting devices (4rd CEs and BRs). >> >>> In case that they are >>> not using 4rd, MUST they exclude this IID range? >> >> Because of RFC 4291 is as it is, softwares that assign IIDs NEVER do it with >> u=g=1 => they don't need any update to exclude the 4rd range. >> (That's precisely why the 4rd range has been chosen with u=g=1). > > Then I don't see a compelling reason to reserve an IID range for 4rd, > since it should work without the reservation just fine.
- As already pointed out, in particular to Ran Atkinson: "Making the reservation for one design, experimental or not, is a guarantee that no future design with conflict with it, experimental or not. A central registry is the appropriate tool for this." - 4rd needs only 1/16384 of the currently unused range, which is worth registering. Regards, RD > > Regards, > Roland > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
