Hi, On 06.02.2013 17:55, Rémi Després wrote: >> Am 06.02.2013 14:52, schrieb Rémi Després: >>> As already said, the 4rd range only makes a first use of an existing >>> RFC4291 provision: "The use of the universal/local bit in the >>> Modified EUI-64 format identifier is to allow development of future >>> technology that can take advantage of interface identifiers with >>> universal scope." >> >> As it turns out now, this assumption is probably no longer true. > > This isn't an "assumption", this is just a quote of RFC 4291.
I meant the assumption within the RFC 4291... > Nothing new needs to be done in any implementation other than that of a > 4rd-supporting devices (4rd CEs and BRs). > >> In case that they are >> not using 4rd, MUST they exclude this IID range? > > Because of RFC 4291 is as it is, softwares that assign IIDs NEVER do it with > u=g=1 => they don't need any update to exclude the 4rd range. > (That's precisely why the 4rd range has been chosen with u=g=1). Then I don't see a compelling reason to reserve an IID range for 4rd, since it should work without the reservation just fine. Regards, Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
