> Hi Folks, > I am attaching the draft I wrote regarding this. Can you please > comment. > > Thanks > Suresh > > Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > > Correct. That is NOT the issue. 3041 and 3041 bis use "randomly" > > generated identifiers that are "local" (not "global" as mac-derived > > identifiers are) and there are some RFCs that RESERVE certain ranges > > within this "local" space. We need some place to document that list > of > > reserved ranges so that a "randomly" generated identifiers don't use > > those reserved ranges. Any future assignment of reserved local > > identifiers always run the risk of having existing implementations > > generate identifiers that may conflict.
Fred explained that ISATAP identifiers should really use the global bit as well. As for anycast and multicast, these addresses supposedly set the "group" bit in the identifiers -- and if they don't they really should, since the L2 transmission is multicast. Setting the G bit differentiates these addresses from RFC3041 addresses. I don't think that we have a real problem, and I believe that an additional registry would do more harm than good. It would create an avenue for groups to reserve more identifiers, in the naïve belief that implementations would magically be updated to avoid these numbers. And it would create an extra burden for implementers. Groups that want to reserve identifiers should really use the IEEE 802 processes. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
