Alex, While I believe that Suresh is correct in the case of RFC 2464, I am very interested in the Ethernet implementation that supports non-64 bit IID. Do you have a reference for this implementation? Further, are you interested in supporting non-64 bit network prefixes? If so, let me know offline and we can discuss.
Best Regards, Jeffrey Dunn Info Systems Eng., Lead MITRE Corporation. (301) 448-6965 (mobile) -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 2:03 PM To: Alexandru Petrescu Cc: 6man Subject: Re: Questions about rfc2464 IPv6 over Ethernet Hi Alex, On 18/02/09 11:56 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Dear 6MANers, > > May I comment on two things about rfc2464 IPv6 over EThernet. > >> 4. Stateless Autoconfiguration > > I think a better title for this would be "Forming an IID for Ethernet". > Because that's what the majority of the text of the section describes. An IPv6 over foo document needs to define two parameters for SLAAC. * IID formation * DAD params (mainly DupAddrDetectTransmits) RFC2464 defines the former while leaving the latter undefined and hence using the default(1). So, I think it is defining SLAAC parameters. I do not have a strong preference, but the way I see it, the current title looks fine. It is certainly not worth a bis :-) > > And because it sounds too much as "Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" > described in rfc4862, which is much more than just forming an IID, and > has message exchanges. > >> An IPv6 address prefix used for stateless autoconfiguration [ACONF] >> of an Ethernet interface must have a length of 64 bits. > > I disagree with this. There's an implementation of SLAAC over Ethernet > whose prefix can be shorter than 64 and works ok. I suppose there's at > least another similar implementation. Given that the EUI-64 identifier as described in RFC2464 is 64 bits long and the following statement in RFC4862 "If the sum of the prefix length and interface identifier length does not equal 128 bits, the Prefix Information option MUST be ignored." I think the statement in RFC2464 makes sense. I do not believe your implementation follows Section 4 of RFC2464. i.e. You form your IID differently. Thanks Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
