Correct Brian, no SLAAC. Darren
> On Mar 11, 2020, at 10:34 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 12-Mar-20 10:44, Fernando Gont wrote: >> On 11/3/20 18:30, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> [....] >>> >>> However, I can't find anything in RFC 4291 that forbids addresses >>> having semantic meanings rather than being pure locators. It goes >>> against one of my design prejudices, but I can't find anything >>> resembling "Encoding semantics in address bits considered harmful" >>> in the RFCs. >> >> Didn't *you* write that document? ;-) : RFC7136 > > Well yes, in the context of IIDs used for SLAAC etc. But that's a bit more > narrow than what we are discussing here, I think. I assume that SLAAC is > not involved. > > Good catch, though ;-) > > Brian _______________________________________________ spring mailing list spring@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
