[mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; steve_eiser...@ao.uscourts.gov; Internet
Architecture Board; 6man mailing list; IESG; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers' to
Proposed Stand
Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; steve_eiser...@ao.uscourts.gov; Internet
Architecture Board; 6man mailing list; IESG; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Inte
Brian, Jeffrey,
The picture and text that you quoted are in this RFC exactly as they are
in RFC 4291. We did get some feedback on that text during the last call,
but we decided that it would be confusing for this particular RFC to say
something else than RFC 4291. RFC 4291 is, after all, the c
Jeffrey,
On 2008-12-13 15:18, Dunn, Jeffrey H. wrote:
> Colleagues,
>
> I have a question about the following language in section 2.0:
>
> "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 Mod
Colleagues,
I have a question about the following language in section 2.0:
"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 format. "
Although I do not see a MUST in this sentence
