On 15/08/2013 10:56, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > On Aug 14, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> * Section 3: >>>> To the extent that each method of IID creation specifies the values >>>> of the "u" and "g" bits, and that each new method is carefully >>>> designed in the light of its predecessors, these bits tend to reduce >>>> the chances of duplicate IIDs. >>> Not sure what you mean. Do you mean that *if* each IID-generation method >>> were to use a different combination of "ug", colisions between them >>> would be avoided? If so, I'd argue that since there's no coordination of >>> which combinations should be used for which method, that's unfeasible. >>> For instance, traditional SLAAC uses all combinations (modulo >>> "illegal/unused" combinations of ug). >> The argument is fuzzy and the sentence needs to be rewritten. >> >> (I would actually suggest that in a pseudo-random method, now that we >> are clear that the bits have no meaning, it would be best to use them to >> provide two more bits of entropy rather than giving them fixed values.) > > Good grief. If the bits don't mean anything - and they never did, since > nobody ever interpreted them except in IETF dancing-on-heads-of-pins > discussions - could we simply say that they are as random in value as any of > the other bits in the IID are?
Yes, I believe future IID formats could do that. We can try to make that clear in the next version. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
