> I've been thinking about this issue for a while. Currently, I'm not
> sure if we need to do something in rfc2462bis for this issue.
(snip)
> Please someone clarify this point. Then I'll consider what is
> necessary for rfc2462bis (or whether we need to do something in the
> first place) for this matter.
i guess it is either:
- interface ID is always 64 bit, no matter what. addr-arch should be
simplified and state that interface ID is 64 bit.
- stateless addrconf (and maybe ND?) is currently defined only for
unicast prefixes starting with "001", where interface ID is 64 bit.
stateless addrconf (and maybe ND) for other unicast prefixes is left
as a homework for readers.
i really hate the latter, as the latter means that currently-available
implementation won't work for unicast prefixes other than "001".
let us pick the former and simplify.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
