Hi,
Firstly, I support advancing this draft.
Some suggested changes:
" This has no known harmful effect as long as the
replicated MAC addresses and IIDs are used on different layer 2
links. If they are used on the same link, of course there will be a
problem, to be detected by duplicate address detection [RFC4862], but
such a problem can usually only be resolved by human intervention."
I think it would be worth pointing out that the link layer is most likely to
fail to operate with duplicate link layer addresses, before DAD has a chance to
detect duplicate IPv6 addresses.
" Also, there is
evidence from the field that IEEE MAC addresses with "u" = 0 are
sometime incorrectly assigned to multiple MAC interfaces. Firstly,
there are recurrent reports of manufacturers assigning the same MAC
address to multiple devices. Secondly, significant re-use of the
same virtual MAC address is reported in virtual machine environments. "
I found this text a bit confusing. The '"u" = 0' term read like it was
referring to locally unique IEEE MAC addresses ("unique equals no"), and then
the 2nd sentence is referring to globally unique (but duplicated and therefore
not actually globally unique) MAC addresses, u = 1 in an IPv6 IID, the opposite
of what the previous sentence was referring to. Then the third sentence seems
to be describing to what the first sentence was referring to. I think the cause
of the confusion might be that IEEE use the "locally assigned" bit to
distinguish locally generated or not (i.e., "l" = 0 for globally unique), where
as IPv6 IIDs have renamed it to "u" bit when the value is inverted. I'd suggest
trying to ensure the IEEE terminology is used when IEEE addresses are discussed
to make it clearer what the properties of the IEEE address are.
Regards,
Mark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
