On 02/05/2013 05:57 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi, Doug,

Please see inline.


2013-02-04 à 18:37, Doug Barton <do...@dougbarton.us> :

On 02/04/2013 12:38 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
It remains that IIDs having u=1 SHOULD be unique, i.e. with rare enough 
exceptions. This is somewhat similar to the expectation that ULA collisions 
shouldn't be seen).

This theoretical unicity has been extensively used to assign stable IIDs, 
without administrative action, to hosts  that have no privacy constraints 
requiring the opposite.

What software exists that makes determinations based on the u bit?

(*) Major OSes can assign IIDs derived from IEEE MAC addresses of their LAN 
adapters (if not by default, at least as a possibility). They do it because of 
what IEEE and IETF have specified, each one for its own domain, concerning 
their respective u bits.

Yes, you've described reality. You haven't answered my questions.

With these specifications, it is impossible on a SLAAC link that two hosts that 
have universal-scope addresses (necessarily different if they communicate at 
the MAC layer), would have conflicting IIDs at the IP layer if they derive them 
from MAC addresses.

What makes the addresses unique are the unique MACs, not the u bit.

How would that software be impacted if the u bit were suddenly be devoid of 
meaning?

Hosts would become free to assign arbitrary IIDs having u=1, breaking 
applicability of (*) above.

Faulty premise -> faulty conclusion.

I am of course assuming that DAD would still be in play for dynamically 
assigned addresses, which it seems we are all in agreement on.

Sure (agreement confirmed).


Hope it clarifies.

To me, it clarifies that you don't have answers to my questions. Given that you cannot demonstrate any negative impact to un-defining the u bit, I wonder what the basis of your objection is.

Doug

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to