>> But, unless there is an actual problem with the design the IETF has >> adopted, I am reluctant to change it "just because". > > i know. ipv6 is perfect, widely deployed, and unchangable. i hope we all > like v4 nat.
I can find many reasons to remove the magic from the U and G bits. I personally ran into the U/G bit issues in RFC 4380 (Teredo) and RFC 6052 (IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses). In both cases, the design would have been simpler if we had not try to maintain the fiction of the U and G bits. And CGA could definitely benefit from 2 additional bits of entropy. So this is not a change "just because." -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
