Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-10-02 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 02/10/2013 20:32, Ray Hunter wrote: >> Brian E Carpenter >> 1 October 2013 23:48 >> I know that a couple of people wanted the extra details suggested by Ray >> below. However, the explanation that I got from the 802.1 liaison >> (see my previous message) seem

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-10-02 Thread Ray Hunter
> Brian E Carpenter > 1 October 2013 23:48 > I know that a couple of people wanted the extra details suggested by Ray > below. However, the explanation that I got from the 802.1 liaison > (see my previous message) seems to me to make the details unimportant. > >

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-10-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
I know that a couple of people wanted the extra details suggested by Ray below. However, the explanation that I got from the 802.1 liaison (see my previous message) seems to me to make the details unimportant. Regards Brian On 04/09/2013 00:37, Ray Hunter wrote: >> Brian E Carpenter

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-09-03 Thread Ran Atkinson
I'd like to see Ray Hunter's proposed text added to the I-D, rather than being summarised. I find the detail quite useful. Honestly, it is a more clear justification/motivation for this significant specification change than anything else I've yet seen. So I believe that most other readers als

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-09-03 Thread RJ Atkinson
All, I'd like to see Ray Hunter's proposed text added to the I-D, rather than having it summarised. I find the detail quite useful. Honestly, it is a more clear justification/motivation for this significant specification change than anything else I've yet seen. So I believe that most other re

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-09-03 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Ran, On 04/09/2013 10:38, Ran Atkinson wrote: > I'd like to see Ray Hunter's proposed text added > to the I-D, rather than being summarised. The authors will of course do whatever the WG wants on this. However, we also have a query out to the IEEE 802.1 liaison, so it make sense to wait for that.

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-09-03 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Ray, OK, I see your point, but that seems like too much detail to be useful for most readers. I'd be inclined to summarise it considerably. Regards Brian On 04/09/2013 00:37, Ray Hunter wrote: >> Brian E Carpenter >> 2 September 2013 22:18 >> On 02/09/2013

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-09-03 Thread Ray Hunter
> Brian E Carpenter > 2 September 2013 22:18 > On 02/09/2013 17:55, Ray Hunter wrote: >>> Brian E Carpenter >>> 2 September 2013 03:38 >>> Ray, >>> So AFAICS the u/l restriction and uniqueness restriction is only r

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-09-02 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 02/09/2013 17:55, Ray Hunter wrote: >> Brian E Carpenter >> 2 September 2013 03:38 >> Ray, >> >>> So AFAICS the u/l restriction and uniqueness restriction is only >>> relevant when EUI64 is used in the context of specific LAN hardware, but >>> perhaps not all

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-09-01 Thread Ray Hunter
> Brian E Carpenter > 2 September 2013 03:38 > Ray, > >> So AFAICS the u/l restriction and uniqueness restriction is only >> relevant when EUI64 is used in the context of specific LAN hardware, but >> perhaps not all router interface hardware. > > The phrasing i

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-09-01 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Ray, > So AFAICS the u/l restriction and uniqueness restriction is only > relevant when EUI64 is used in the context of specific LAN hardware, but > perhaps not all router interface hardware. The phrasing in the draft looks completely compatible with that to me. > There's a specific IEEE contact

Re: Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-09-01 Thread Ray Hunter
inline Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi Fernando, > > Thanks once again! We'll make corresponding updates in the next version. > Just a few discussion points below: > > On 14/08/2013 19:43, Fernando Gont wrote: > ... >> * Section 2: >>> However, this has not so far proved to be the case. Also, there

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-08-14 Thread Randy Bush
>> (I would actually suggest that in a pseudo-random method, now that we >> are clear that the bits have no meaning, it would be best to use them to >> provide two more bits of entropy rather than giving them fixed values.) > > Good grief. If the bits don't mean anything - and they never did, > si

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-08-14 Thread Brian E Carpenter
On 15/08/2013 10:56, Fred Baker (fred) wrote: > On Aug 14, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > >>> * Section 3: To the extent that each method of IID creation specifies the values of the "u" and "g" bits, and that each new method is carefully designed in the light of

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-08-14 Thread Fred Baker (fred)
On Aug 14, 2013, at 2:27 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> * Section 3: >>> To the extent that each method of IID creation specifies the values >>> of the "u" and "g" bits, and that each new method is carefully >>> designed in the light of its predecessors, these bits tend to reduce >>> the ch

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

2013-08-14 Thread Brian E Carpenter
Hi Fernando, Thanks once again! We'll make corresponding updates in the next version. Just a few discussion points below: On 14/08/2013 19:43, Fernando Gont wrote: ... > * Section 2: >> However, this has not so far proved to be the case. Also, there is >> evidence from the field that IEEE MAC a