[...] >> - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be >> available to propose a draft to this effect. > > Seems reasonable. > > >> (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of >> IIDs having u=g=1 is reserved. This leaves plenty of space for future >> uses of IIDs having u=1, as explicitly expected in RFC 4291. > > That goes to the argument of (d), that it isn't harmful to assign > some space to 4rd.
I still think we need to answer the question Brian raised. should the interface-id have any encoded meaning? cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
