2012-12-21 12:00, Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> : > 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.
Fair enough. I mean that, AFAIK, all technical objections to u=g=1 being used for new IID formats have been answered. I do understand that some may feel differently, and that in this case the debate must go on to reach common enough understanding. That's why I continue to provide explanations on technical points that, in others' opinions, appear to be unresolved. >> 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. Privacy option IIDs (RFC 4941) all have u=0. They cannot conflict with 4rd IIDs which all have u=1 . >> - 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. ;-) The fact that the chairs are in charge of identifying consensus is crystal clear to me. I just express my opinion when I believe it is useful to the community. > 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? Yes, we do disagree on this: - With the reserved IID range, 4rd can be activated in any IPv6 site without interfering with its subnet assignments, and without any host having to be renumbered because of a conflict with a 4rd IPv6 address. - This wouldn't work if 4rd IIDs would have u=0, because some hosts having RFC4291-compliant IIDs may be in conflict. - MAP-E hasn't the same need because implementations can use the protocol field to discriminate MAP-E packets from native IPv6 packets. Regards, RD -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
