Two constraints on IPv6 address formats appear to be unnecessary
while prohibiting some designs that are useful to enhance IPv6 benefits:
- One concerns addresses that never appear on any IPv6 link.
Since only purpose of these addresses is to derive from them some
local addresses subject to IID constraints, they shouldn't, be
themselves, be required to include 64-bit IID fields with their
restricted format (u and g bits specified values).
- The second one concerns a strict interpretation of RFC 4291 that
permits new IID formats ONLY for global-scope IIDs.
It happens that some new IID formats with local scope could also be
useful.
The recent draft on Multihoming across local-addressing routing zones
proposes a design that requires these two unnecessary constraints to
be relaxed (ref tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-sam-03).
Its section 2.5 and its note in section 3.2.2 introduce the subject.
The 6man agenda was already too heavy for a presentation during this
meeting, but the subject is clearly in the scope of the WG.
It is introduced for further consideration.
Regards,
RD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
