Ran, I looked at the ILNP RFCs while we were preparing draft-carpenter-6man-ug-00, and it seemed to me that ILNP doesn't in fact use IIDs, but rather a redefinition of the bottom 64 bits as a Node Identifier [RFC6741]. Doesn't that separate the use of the u/g bits for ILNP completely from their use in plain IPv6?
Please have a look at the draft and suggest corrections if it seems wrong to you. Regards Brian On 01/02/2013 13:54, RJ Atkinson wrote: > On 31 Jan 2013, at 13:11 , Rémi Després wrote: >> What ensures 4rd doesn't conflict with ILNP isn't at all >> that ILNP only uses u=0. >> >> It is that, in ILNP, no u=g=1 is used in *unicast* addresses >> (those whose IIDs are specified by RFC 4291). > > This is still inaccurate. > > I REALLY would be greatly obliged if you would not speculate > about ILNP on IETF/IRTF mailing lists, primarily because > any speculation is likely to be wrong -- and create needless > confusion amongst other folks on those lists. > > Some published ILNP papers talk about a form of multicast > addressing/routing that we believe is novel and are exploring. > This combines a unicast routing prefix in the high-order > 64-bits with an IEEE EUI-64 compliant (and RFC-4291 > compliant) multicast group ID (i.e., U=G=1) in the low-order > 64-bits. Because of existing IETF standards-track work > where U=0, for example CGAs or "privacy" addresses, the > U=0 identifier space (i.e., U=0 and G=1) can NOT be used > for multicast identifiers. > > So the proposed 4rd reservation of all (or most) uses of > addresses with the combination of (A) U=G=1 identifier space > and (B) unicast routing prefix is a direct conflict with > published ILNP papers and active ILNP work. > > Both ILNP and 4rd are Experimental, at least today. > This is why I tabled the possibility of allocating > a small portion of the U=G=1 space under RFC-3692 shared > experimental use rules. That would permit multiple > experiments to proceed, and is the usual IETF custom > for experimental work when a limited protocol-registry > resource is involved. > > Yours, > > Ran > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
