On 1/25/13 1:09 PM, "Tom Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:
>We have two choices on this one: > >a) prohibit the use of an end user IPv6 prefix of length greater than 64 >bits; I would think that is restrictive. > >b) simply remove the reference to RFC6052, or qualify it by saying that >the IID conforms to Section 2.2 of RFC 6052 except in the case of end >user IPv6 prefixes of length greater than 64 bits. That would be fine, but it is not clear now in the current draft if we should skip the u bits or overwrite them if the prefix length is greater than 64. Senthil > >Any preferences? > >On 24/01/2013 7:22 PM, Ole Troan wrote: >> Tom, >> >>> I believe that makes the IID non-conformant to RFC 6052. >> >> it uses an IID similar to 6052... any better suggestion? >> (my personal view is that 6052 got things wrong with the U octet, but >>that's another matter) >> >> cheers, >> Ole >> >> >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
