On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 14:05 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote: > Shouldn't it be specified with RFC 2119 language?
The first para just described intent. The others used 2119 language.
> Yep. I think it would be better to have all IIDs generated with the
> algorithm.
It may be better, but it is a change to a massively widely-implemented
mechanism. I suggest therefore
"IPv6 implementations conforming to this specification MUST NOT
use Modified-IEEE format interface identifiers [see 4291 Appendix
A] for any purpose EXCEPT THAT link local addresses MAY (but SHOULD
NOT) be generated using Modified-IEEE format interface identifiers.
> Sorry, what you put in the key would be used for setting the IID??
Yep - if I set the flag and put "::53" in the key, then the address
generated will be prefix::53. But this is just an off-topic idea and not
essential to your draft.
> What's the use case you have in mind?
Don't have one :-)
Regards, K.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
