On 02/10/2013 20:32, Ray Hunter wrote:
>> Brian E Carpenter <mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
>> 1 October 2013 23:48
>> I know that a couple of people wanted the extra details suggested by Ray
>> below. However, the explanation that I got from the 802.1 liaison
>> (see my previous message) seems to me to make the details unimportant.
>>
>> Regards
>> Brian
>
> I see your point.
>
> The IEEE response makes it clear to me that the examples I provided are
> all perfectly valid, and it also confirms a more generic conclusion that
> it is incorrect to assume uniqueness when utilising a L2 LAN-scope
> address beyond its intended scope (to form an IID).
Agreed. I have to say this was a surprise to me. I can't speak for anyone
else, including the designers of the Modified EUI format, but I was under
the delusion that the intent of 802.1 was u=universal=unique. Quoting
the DIX Ethernet standard dated November 1982, "A station's physical address
should be distinct from the physical address of any other station on any
Ethernet." I guess it was a mistake to go by that ;-)
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
