Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>

[David Farmer <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 3:47 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 23/07/2017 03:37, Philip Homburg wrote:
> >> Then you really have to answer my question: if they are not called
> "interface
> >> identifier" what are those bits called?
> >
> > So let me call them 'host part'
>
> Hate to be picky but in RFC8200 'host' does not include 'router' and these
> bits certainly exist in router addresses.
>
> So it would have to be 'node part'. But in most cases (the only exception
> being anycast) these bits may be (not must be) different in the node per
> interface, so 'node' is still wrong. I just don't get why it isn't
> 'interface part' (with an exception for anycast). And if it's 'interface
> part' I really don't see why it isn't 'interface identifier'.
>
> Here's a thought. How would it be if the contentious sentence in 4291bis
> read, in its entirety:
>
> "Interface Identifiers are 64 bits long when used for Stateless
> Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) [RFC4862]."
>
> ?.
>
> Who here could not live with that?
>

I'd be fine with that.

But , how about instead of scoping it to SLAAC specifically, how bout more
generically scoping it to automatically configured addresses or
self-configured addresses as opposed to an address provided to the node
externally.

Just a suggestion, I can live with SLAAC specifically.

thanks
-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:[e-mail]
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE        Phone: [phone]
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================