On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:36:16AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> Nevertheless, the significance of bits #57 and #58 are not widely
> known to IPv6 operators out there.
I cannot count. g-bit is bit #56, not #58. My only excuse for this mail
flood is that it's almost 3am local time here. :-Z My apol
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:40:28AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> "EUI-64" == "IEEE EUI-64" != "modified EUI-64".
>
> The modification is exactly the flipped bit. See 2.5.1:
Please ignore my comment completely. I was thinking of the u/g bits,
which are NOT relevant to the FF-FF and FF-FE thing, un
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:40:28AM +0100, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> An IPv6 address (not derrived from a globally unique ID like ethernet
> MAC) with the the upper 3 host bits != 000 and u or g bit set to 1
> would be wrong. :-)
s/upper 3 host bits/upper 3 bits 001 through 111 [except multicast
.
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 02:53:07AM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL
PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
> According to draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-04.txt (or already-published
> RFCs), we insert 0xFFFE in the middle of the interface identifier in
> order to convert an 48-bit MAC address to the modified EUI-64 fo
Hi Jinmei,
I was confused by the same inconsistency couple of years ago and a
thread resulting from my question failed to clarify the choice. I guess
it is something we have to live with. You can look at this thread.
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg10039.html
Cheers
Suresh
JINMEI Ta
