Hi Fernando,
On 01/02/2013 20:13, Fernando Gont wrote:
Hi, Brian Sheng,
On 02/01/2013 05:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We've put this together to address the general question of the
u/g bits in Interface IDs. Discussion is requested.
Some comments:
Section 1:
The
Hello,
Anyone had an opportunity to view the new version of our SSAS draft RFC. I
received no comments after I applied the last comments given by Ray, Jeremy,
Fernando and others. Your thoughts and comments would be greatly
appreciated.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-01
Brian,
I agree that this is a good time to clarify uses of u and g bits, and support
the initiative Sheng and yourself has taken.
Comments and suggestions inline.
2013-02-01 21:13, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com :
Hi, Brian Sheng,
On 02/01/2013 05:13 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I've read the draft.
Quote: It should be noted that IIDs known or guessed to have been created
according to RFC 4941 could be transformed back into MAC addresses,
for example during fault diagnosis. For that reason, keeping the u
and g bits in the IID has operational value. Therefore,
2013-02-01 21:57, RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com :
On 01 Feb 2013, at 10:30 , Rémi Després wrote:
Each of the designs we are interested in depends, to be complete,
on reservation of a subset of the IID space left unused by RFC4291
(that having u=g=1).
Both are *experiments*. Neither
On 02/02/2013 10:27, Ray Hunter wrote:
I've read the draft.
Quote: It should be noted that IIDs known or guessed to have been created
according to RFC 4941 could be transformed back into MAC addresses,
for example during fault diagnosis. For that reason, keeping the u
and g bits
On Sat, 2013-02-02 at 09:44 +0100, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
Anyone had an opportunity to view the new version of our SSAS draft RFC. I
received no comments after I applied the last comments given by Ray, Jeremy,
Fernando and others. Your thoughts and comments would be greatly
appreciated.
On 2/1/13 7:56 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 02/01/2013 09:41 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
With regard to section 3, I would ask the question in the reverse.
(which may actually be the same quewstion Fernando is asking.)
If we assume that there is value in being able to perform the diagnostic
Inline
Rémi Després wrote:
Brian,
I agree that this is a good time to clarify uses of u and g bits, and support
the initiative Sheng and yourself has taken.
Comments and suggestions inline.
2013-02-01 21:13, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com :
Hi, Brian Sheng,
On 02/01/2013 05:13
On 02/02/2013 13:26, Brian Haberman wrote:
On 2/1/13 7:56 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 02/01/2013 09:41 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
With regard to section 3, I would ask the question in the reverse.
(which may actually be the same quewstion Fernando is asking.)
If we assume that there is value
Le 2013-02-02 à 16:02, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com a écrit :
On 02/02/2013 07:40 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Both are *experiments*. Neither is a standard.
With respect to Softwire, they decided to standardise
something other than 4rd. Had they decided to
standardise 4rd, my views
2013-02-02 12:46, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com :
...
IMHO The only combination that has operational value for the purpose of
mapping IPv6 address to MAC today is:
u==1 g==0 (concatenated with unicast IPv6/64 prefix[2000::/3] ||
link local address [fe80::/10]) SLAAC
On 02/02/2013 10:45 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
If another standards body built a link technology based on EUI64
*format* identifiers, but with their own OUI administration, that should
never be a problem for IPv6, because RFC4291 only requires IID's to be
unique within a subnet prefix. They are not
Le 2013-02-02 à 14:45, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net a écrit :
...
In any case, and more important in my understanding, this doesn't change
that any IID having u=1 can never conflict with IEEE-derived IIDs, be they
duplicated or not. A clarification on this would IMHO be useful.
I have a
I a not clear what aspect of the semantics of u==1 and the relationship
to EUI-64 is a dead duck. Currently, if you see something with u==1,
you know it was made from an EUI-64. Under your proposal, you would not
know that.
Yous tae below tat the presence of ==1 doesn't mean that. to the
Fernando Gont mailto:fg...@si6networks.com
2 February 2013 16:15
How could you possible ensure such uniqueness without coordination?
(i.e., how can you ensure uniqueness if several non-cooperating
organizations are generating OUIS with u=1?)
Cheers,
You can't at a global/ multi-link level.
Thanks for your comments. Please find my responses inline.
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Karl
Auer
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 1:03 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D action : draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-01
17 matches
Mail list logo
