I second the idea of an IANA registry for that. This would be
very useful and would provide be the easiest way to update that
list later.
- Alain.
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:43 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Agree.
Regards,
Jordi
De: Durand, Alain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Responder a: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 04:00:46 -0400
Para: Suresh Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED], ipv6@ietf.org
Conversación: Reserved interface identifier registry
Asunto: RE: Reserved interface identifier registry
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 02:42:35 Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Some RFCs (I know of at least 2, RFC2526 and RFC4214) reserve a set
of interface identifiers on all prefixes. These identifiers need to be
excluded when a node autoconfigures an address. This problem occurs with
privacy addresses
No disagreement here.
However, this is NOT the fault of the list. Any RFC that defines a new
restricted range would need to point out the issue that existing
implementations may configure an address in this restricted range.
But, having an IANA registry at least gives us a mechanism by which
[snip]
Hi Suresh/all,
Hi Folks,
Some RFCs (I know of at least 2, RFC2526 and RFC4214) reserve a set
of interface identifiers on all prefixes. These identifiers need to be
excluded when a node autoconfigures an address. This problem occurs with
privacy addresses but is equally applicable to
