Aside from the need for the "more flexible" interface identifiers
(which I personally don't see yet), I'd like to clarify one minor
point.
At Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:13:49 -0400,
Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we agree in principal on the objective. Where we don't agree on,
> is the scope of the solution.
>
> Currently, the II spec is fixed regardless of medium.
Actually, the autoconfiguration spec (namely RFC2462, which was
revised as RFC4862 very recently) states that the length of interface
identifiers depend on specific link types - see the bullet for
"interface identifier" in the TERMINOLOGY section of RFC2462 and
RFC4862. One confusing point is that the address architecture also
specifies the length of interface identifiers, which seems to be
independent from the underlying media (link) type. We discussed this
in the rfc2462bis work, and clarified it in RFC4862:
[...] The
exact length of an interface identifier and the way it is created
is defined in a separate link-type specific document that covers
issues related to the transmission of IP over a particular link
type (e.g., [RFC2464]). Note that the address architecture
[RFC4291] also defines the length of the interface identifiers for
some set of addresses, but the two sets of definitions must be
consistent.
The clarification was actually a compromise, and doesn't specifiy how
these definitions can be consistent. But we could not find a better
way to explain the seeming discrepancy at that time; hence this text.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
