Dave Thaler escribió:
I would agree with that, if 3972 is being updated anyway.
I think CSI is not currently chartered to do so though.
actually, we are
From http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/csi-charter.html
- Update base specifications (RFC 3971 and 3972).
So far, though i haven0t seen much that needed to be changed in rfc3972,
but this maybe be important
-Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 11:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Dave Thaler
Subject: One more bit for hash information in CGAs? ( was [Fwd:
[BEHAVE] Modified EUI-64 format]
There is an ongoing discussion in BEHAVE ml, where it seems that we
could use the "g" bit in order to include hash information...
considering that the hash length is one of the key limitations of CGAs,
we may consider updating 3972 to use this bit...
comments?
I attach the extract of the thread below...
-------- Mensaje original --------
Asunto: [BEHAVE] Modified EUI-64 format
Fecha: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 04:06:21 +0000
De: Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
Para: Xing Li <[email protected]>
CC: Behave WG <[email protected]>
Similarly, with privacy addresses referred to in the draft quote
at top, RFC 3041 section 3.2.1 point 3 forces the randomized
interface identifier to adhere to this requirement, so that it's
a 63-bit random number, not a 64-bit random number. And with
CGAs, RFC 3972 section 4 point 6 similarly forces a generated
interface identifier to adhere to this requirement. (As an aside,
it also reserves the "g" bit which is actually unnecessary
since it's not IEEE EUI-64-derived. RFC 4291 only discusses
the "g" bit for addresses derived from IEEE EUI-64's, which
is why RFC 3041 and a translation format can still use that bit).
_______________________________________________
CGA-EXT mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cga-ext
