Hi Alexandru, I would be a bit careful to use IMEI as Interface Identifier. I am not really sure if this is something you want to tell the whole world. (I know that Francis has a draft out on this topic, and no I have not read it, yet.) For instance, when the 3GPP mechanism of address allocation was designed in 3GPP, one of the criteria was not to show the IMEI. This is kind of confidential information from the end user point of view. In addition, it might not always be unique...
Cheers, Jonne. > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 12:02 PM > To: Steve Deering > Cc: Alberto Escudero-Pascual; Erik Nordmark; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Next steps on Reserving bits in RFC 2473 Interface IDs? > > > Steve Deering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The u bit in the current IID definition indicates whether or not the > > IID can be considered globally unique. > > I'm trying to fit the IMEI into one of: > > Links or Nodes with IEEE EUI-64 Identifiers > Links or Nodes with IEEE 802 48 bit MAC's > Links with Non-Global Identifiers > Links without Identifiers > > and I can not fit into any, since it looks than an IMEI is global but > is neither an EUI-64 identifier, nor an IEEE 802 48 MAC address. > However, the link can not be considered as a link without > identifiers[*]. > > IMEI being global I'm tempted to touch the u bit (universal/local). > > IMEI has nothing in it that could influence the g bit > (individual/group), but further investigation is necessary probably. > > Alex > > [*] or can it? I guess that phones have IMEI's but their peers at the > other end of the link (GSNS/SGNS) don't. > > > > When trying to > code other identifiers into Modified EUI-64, I wonder whether the > individial/group bit should also be set/reset, in addition to the > universal/local bit. > > Also, why EUI-64 was adopted as basis and not any other? I understand > that this easily covers 802 LAN's, but why not something more agnostic > like > > If it was chosen > as the preferred coding for Interface ID's for global unicast > addresses, and as such as an umbrella for other identifiers, was > > I understand that > Modified EUI-64 is to be used with all global unicast addresses > > The zero value (implying *not* > > globally unique) is used not only for randomly-generated ("privacy") > > IIDs but also for manually-assigned IIDs, and IIDs assigned via DHCP > > that are not derived from the node's IEEE-802 or EUI-64 address. In > > other words, u=0 does *not* mean randomly generated; it means not- > > globally-unique. > > > > Steve > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
