In reading the discussion,a nd trying to think through what I understand
to be correct, it seems that there is an unforeseen ambiguity in the way
the current documents about IPv6 IIDs are written.
I think that there are two possible meanings, ad we should decide
explicitly which one we want.
1) u=1 means that the IID is derived from an IEEE OUI (of some form).
With that meaning, u=1, g=1 is clearly some sort of multi-entity
identifier. And we should say that somewhere.
2) u=1, g=1 was unforeseen, and we don't know what it means. In that
case, we ought to figure out how we want that portion of the IID space
used, and write it down clearly. It seems to me that allowing this
space to be used for special-semantic IIDs (with suitable care so that
the entire ecosystem is not affected by them) is a very reasonable path.
It seems unlikely that there is actual practice in the wild with u=1,
g=1 under either interpretation. We do now have a request to start
using it (4rd). So we should decide.
Yours,
Joel
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
