Brian, >>> I think the only way to make progress on this question is to >>> discuss two points in a much more general way: >>> >>> 1. Does the current mapping of the "u" bit in the modified EUI format have >>> any value? >>> >>> 2. Does the current mapping of the "g" bit in the modified EUI format have >>> any value? >>> >>> If the answer to these questions is "no" we could start by saying that they >>> are *not* mapped from an IEEE EUI into a modified EUI, and then consider >>> how to use them in future. >> >> or we could consider the interface-id as 64 bits without any implied meaning >> attached to >> any of the bits. > > We could certainly discuss that, but first I'd like to understand if the > mapping > of the u/g bits into layer 3 addresses has any value in practice. > > I believe it's true that the u bit has no value for ILNP. At one point there > was > a thought that it had potential value for 8+8. Maybe Ran Atkinson can comment.
that's my reading of ILNP as well. the interface-id must be unique within your locator set, but that's no different than how IPv6 works today. > Does the g bit have any value in multicast? (Obviously it has value in the > MAC address, > but here we are talking about the IP address.) as far as I know, none of our implementations do anything based on the values of the u/g bits. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
