Remi, >>>> with Remi's proposal, a duplicate address will not even be detected. >>> >>> Correct: even if software is available to detect collisions between 4rd >>> addresses and RFC 4291-compatible host addresses, it won't detect any. >>> (Such software, which isn't mandatory for 4rd, is of course not excluded >>> either.) >>> >>> The simple reason for this non-detection is that these addresses have IIDs >>> in disjoint sets. >> >> I think you have received quite a lot of pushback against creating disjoint >> sets of IIDs. > > Different understanding. > - Those who have supported haven't needed to repeat their support (see names > in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg17094, and one more > in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg16972) > - Those who have objected continue to receive answers to their concerns (the > above being one instance). > > Besides, these remaining concerns are aside from the question asked by > Softwire (whether reserving a subset of an IID range unused by RFC 4291 is > compatible with the IPv6 addressing architecture).
I think our understanding of the IPv6 addressing architecture is incompatible. there are no unused subset or unused ranges of interface-ids in IPv6. cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
