"Charles E. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That's exactly right, and I am suggesting that the draft > be renamed to be "IPv6-support-for-what-exists-today".
Hi, appologies for a more than week old follow-up and this has probably been mentioned. Being confronted recently with the idea of using new unique ID's of new links for inducing some uniqueness properties into IPv6 addresses I think there's a need for more comfortable place within current IPv6 specs to accomodate those new things. For example, how about better separating IPv6-over-Ethernet rfc2464 from the current address architecture draft of rfc2373? My precise suggestion would be to move EUI-64 and Modified EUI-64 from the latter to the former. Of course, there are reasons for it be where it is, I'm just trying to understand why this is or is not possible. Thanks, Alex -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
