On 2004-02-27, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: > "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > > NB: Is there a plan for 3041bis? It's rather bound up with > > DIID too. > > A quick response. I guess you are talking about the following part of > RFC3041: [...] (the last paragraph of Section 3.3)
Yep, and the other references to 'Interface Identifier' throughout, since we're no longer really making up an II and generating addresses from it, we're just making up random suffixes. Well, that's how I'd see it, anyway. > However, RFC3041 actually has a successor, > draft-ietf-ipngwg-temp-addresses-v2-00.txt (expired for a long period > though), which reversed the logic: Ah, thanks, I hadn't seen that. I'll have a read. I guess that'd be the basis for 3041bis if we decide we need one. -----Nick -- Nick 'Sharkey' Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://zoic.org/sharkey/> "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
