Remi, >> can we please hold back a little and let other people in the working group >> voice their opinion? > > > To make progress, I feel it should be acceptable to continue to: > - ask for clarifications on some points that IMHO remain obscure (e.g. the > purpose of overwriting "the most significant parts of the interface > identifier" for CE IPv6 prefixes of lengths > 64, especially since it > conflicts with RFC 6052).
I don't quite agree that it conflicts, but looking back at comments from several people it might be best to remove the 6052 reference. > - react to statements or assumptions that are AFAIK inaccurate (e.g. that, > with MAP-E IID formats as specified, maintenance could determine PSID values > from IIDs alone.) agree, but you can get a 'fair' idea. given that both the IPv4 address and PSID are fixed length fields at fixed offsets. I'm defending status quo largely because that gives me the least amount of work. ;) please convince the working group of your scheme, and provide the text, and I'll put that in the document. so far I have seen more support for the existing scheme than the "::1" though. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
