On 11/3/20 23:34, Brian E Carpenter 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.
Isn'tpart of the rationale for RFC7136 that there are actually so many
different ways to configure addresses that you cannot even assume SLAAC?
(e.g., see the example on /127s for point-to-point links)
Good catch, though ;-)
;-)
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
_______________________________________________
spring mailing list
spring@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spring
