Roger, Please se inline. 2012-12-2122:12, Roger Jørgensen <rog...@gmail.com> :
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Rémi Després <despres.r...@laposte.net> > wrote: >> 2012-12-2110:49, Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> : >> ... >>>> (*) >>>> 4rd implementors are free to add code to reject any intra-site IID that >>>> (by mistake) would be universal-scope, and in the 4rd-assigned IID range. >>> >>> but the current specification does not handle conflicts? >> >> There is no relation between this subject and whether assigning to 4rd an >> IID range having u=g=1 is "actually compatible with the IPv6 addressing >> architecture", which is the question asked to 6man by Suresh. >> >>> I don't know what an intra-site IID is. >> >> An IID that is used in within a site. > > and what is a site? thought we gave up that definition ages ago? That's only site-local unicast addresses which have been deprecated in 2004 (RFC 3879). "Site" is till in use, for instance in RFC 6368 of September 2011 and RFC 6513 of February 2012. >>>> Whether including this extra complexity would be valuable enough is >>>> debatable, not forgetting that: >>>> - 4rd is experimental >>>> - RFC 4862 says "IPv6 nodes are not required to validate that interface >>>> identifiers created with modified EUI-64 tokens with the "u" bit set to >>>> universal are unique". (There is no guarantee that DAD will prevent all >>>> misuses of universal-scope IIDs.) >>> >>> that's not quite what 4862 says. >> >> Indeed, as you noted in another mail, that's RFC 4291 that says it ;-). >> >>> if the purpose of the reserved block is to avoid conflict with existing >>> nodes on the link, then >>> that idea trivially breaks when you put two 4rd CEs on the same link. >> >> This can be continued offline if you insist, but there has already been >> discussions in Softwire on this subject, with no issue left. > > again, can you please give us a brief summary instead of just > "claiming" it has already been solved? I only said that no issue concerning "two 4rd CEs on the same link" is left open in Softwire. You can check this on the issue tracker of Softwire where pending issues are listed (trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/report/1). No one remains for 4rd. The only point to be cleared concerns the necessary endorsement by 6man of the proposed 4rd IID prefix (as expressed in the draft itself, and raised by Suresh in his mail to 6man). Regards, RD > > > > -- > > Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE > rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
