Remi, >> there appears to be quite a lot of pushback in 6man against the use of u/g >> bits as specified in the 4rd draft. > > FUD, yes, but technically founded pushback that haven't been answered, no one > left AFAIK.
I can't parse the above. > For instance, in you own long list of doubts, you included: > - The need to "update every implementation". It definitely doesn't exist. can you please explain that? given that a RFC4941 implementation may create interface-id's that conflict with the 4rd reserved range. > - The view that "we should design protocols that do not depend on well known > addresses or ports". This doesn't concern 4rd which uses neither WHA nor WKP. well-known or reserved range. I'm not in favour of either. > With these two in particular, one can get the impression that your are trying > to oppose 4rd by all possible means. Without clarification of when your > chair hat is on or off, this is unfortunate IMHO. chair off, I thought I made that clear. I have asked Bob to make the call on this. I don't believe you are in a position to declare what consensus of the 6man working group is either. ;-) I'm not trying to oppose 4rd by "all possible means". I'm trying to limit collateral damage to IPv6 specifications and implementations. I think that 4rd would function perfectly well without any reserved interface-identifier space. do you disagree with that? cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
