Hi Ole, Thanks for clarification. See below for comments.
On 19.12.2012 13:37, Ole Troan wrote: > the interface-ids that 4rd uses must be unique on the link, and it doesn't > handle conflicts with other (native) nodes well. > alternative approaches to reserving interface-id space for this mechanism > could be: Yes, that was another question: how can conflicts be handled/detected if addresses have a meaningful V-field by chance... > - reserve a /64 of the customers delegated prefix for the sole use of 4rd > - the 4rd node protects all possible 4rd interface-ids using DAD IMHO the first option (if viable) sounds more reasonable to me than fiddling with supposed format fields in the IID. Just my 2 cents. Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
