Hi, Senthil, 2013-01-25 à 21:20, Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) <[email protected]> :
> > > 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. Why? RFC 4291 says "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long ...". Doesn't this imply that MAP subnet prefixes always have 64 bits too? RD > >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
