Ole,
It's been a month since I received your last message regarding this I-D.
Can we ship this document now?
P.S.: This latest version addresses the feedback received from Tassos
(I've double-checked with him that his comments have been addressed).
Thanks,
Fernando
On 01/29/2013 10:42 PM, i
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced
Addresses with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
On 01/29/2013 10:18 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> [...]
>>> (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of
>>> IIDs having u=g=1 is reserved. This leaves plenty of space for future
>>> uses of IIDs having u=1, as explicitly expected in RFC 4291.
>>
>> That goes to the argument of (d)
> should the interface-id have any encoded meaning?
having spent a decade+ fighting to throw magic bits out of ipv6
addressing (remember tla?), i find this disturbing.
randy
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Adm
Brian,
- If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be
available to propose a draft to this effect.
>>> Seems reasonable.
>>>
>>>
(e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of
IIDs having u=g=1 is reserved. This leaves plenty of sp
On 29/01/2013 13:18, Ole Troan wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be
>>> available to propose a draft to this effect.
>> Seems reasonable.
>>
>>
>>> (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of
>>> IIDs having u=g=1 is re
Hi,
> I still think we need to answer the question Brian raised.
> should the interface-id have any encoded meaning?
I don't see any benefit of certain bits in the interface-id having special
meanings, but that might be because of a lack of vision on my side :-)
- Sander
--
[...]
>> - If agreed on the principle, and if no one else volunteers, I can be
>> available to propose a draft to this effect.
>
> Seems reasonable.
>
>
>> (e) With the 16-bit 4rd IID prefix, only 1/2^14 of the unused set of
>> IIDs having u=g=1 is reserved. This leaves plenty of space for futu
