In your previous mail you wrote: You are right. This seems to be carried over from RFC 2460. For people who have been involved with IPv6 since then this might be natural. As a new implementor this was confusing to me. Because nobody else complained probably there is no need to correct it? It is upto the WG to decide. => this is an old issue. IMHO the best solution is to consider the MAC-48 -> EUI-48 -> EUI-64 transform in place of the direct MAC-48 -> EUI-64 transform. BTW the EUI-64 stuff is a big joke: *no* IEEE layer 2 uses EUI-64s as addresses today (IEEE 1394 aka I-Link aka FireWire uses 6 bit node addresses).
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] --------------------------------------------------------------------