In your previous mail you wrote: > => what exactly do you mean by "reserve": > - make them not available at all? > - enforce some control/rules on availability? See my first email on the subject. The summary is: Reserve for future use; any future use requires an standards track RFC. => fine, we seem to be in violent agreement.
> BTW I have an objection to the "IPv6 over foo" only way: this assumes > there is a real link. With mobile IPv6 there are some scenarios where > the home link is purely virtual, so there is no foo... What does IPv6 over foo have to do this subject? => there are some answers to your next step message arguing the whole stuff should be moved to "IPv6 over foo" documents. My point is this won't work when there is no foo... So I am in favor to keep the modified EUI-64 stuff in the RFC 2373 revision. Regards [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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
