Hi, > After reading the email thread on <draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00.txt>, the 6man chairs think the sense of the work group is: > > 1) The "u and g" bits did not end up being as useful as was thought when > RFC4291 was standardized. Consequently, we don't think there is any need to > continue the notion that an IID with "u" set to 1 means the IID contains a > globally unique token. > > 2) Under the current scheme defined in RFC4291, the "u" bit only means that > the node creating the IID asserts that it is globally unique. It is > incorrect to make any other assumptions about what is in the IID. The IID > should be viewed as opaque by third parties. > > 3) There isn't any need to change any running code. There isn't any > operational problem with the current definition of the "u" and "g" bits. > Removing the properties for these bits should only apply to new standards > that define new methods to create IIDs. > > 4) DAD should, of course, continue to be used as is specified. > > 5) Having <draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00.txt> become a w.g. document to clarify > these issues would be useful and we think there is support in the w.g. for > this.
+1 Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
