On Wednesday 21 March 2007 02:42:35 Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Some RFCs (I know of at least 2, RFC2526 and RFC4214) reserve a set > of interface identifiers on all prefixes. These identifiers need to be > excluded when a node autoconfigures an address. This problem occurs with > privacy addresses but is equally applicable to other address assigment > methods like dhcpv6, cga etc. As Bernie suggested in a mail it would be > good to maintain a list of such identifiers.
In practice, there is going to be a nasty problem if we reserve extra IIDs that are currently not reserved, as older implementations will not consider them as reserved. Shouldn't we rather define a "large" set of reserved addresses that cannot be used as normal IIDs - or do we have this already? Of course, we'd still need an IANA registry at the end of the day to keep track of which addresses in the reserved set actually have a semantic. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
