2009/12/21 Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com
If WKP(64:FF9B::/96) is the consensus, it better to state clearly that
WKP should not apply U/G requirements in the
draft, right?
The U/G bits in 64:FF9B::/96 are set to zero, so there is no need for an
exception.
This is not an
My question is: Should the IPv4-embeded IPv6 address still be in
accordance with the specification defined in RFC4291 as ...For all unicast
addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000, Interface IDs
are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64
I have a concern about that specified rule of bits 64 to 71 doesn't protect
the semantics
of the u/g bit. In the case of adopting WKP, the U-bits should be 1, since
WKP is only
concatenated with global IPv4 address to guarantee the uniqueness of
IPv4-Converted
IPv6 addresses.
Xu Xiaohu wrote:
Since the following email is not successfully received by some subscribers,
so I resend it.
You might want to try and subscribe to ipv6@ietf.org to resolve part of
that issue, otherwise everytime you sent something it ends up in the
moderation queue
Greets,
Jeroen
] address-format: bits 64 to 71
Xu Xiaohu wrote :
The following statement is quoted from RFC 4291: IPv6
nodes are not
required to validate that interface identifiers created
with modified
EUI-64 tokens with the u bit set to universal are unique.
The use of the universal/local bit
Wojciech Dec (wdec) wrote:
Indeed, not checking uniqueness of IPv6 addresses when they are
MAC-address derived would be a bad idea: MAC addresses cannot be
assumed to be really universal because they can be administratively
configured in some hosts.
Under the EUI-64 scheme, a non unique
