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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 20/07/2017 01:51, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> David Farmer wrote:
>> 2. The fact that some components of IPv6 are architecturally based on
>> 64bit IIDs doesn't mean that operationally IIDs are always required to
>> be 64 bits.
> 
> this is certainly implied by the current text in -09.
> 
>> Rather than implying that operationally IID are required to
>> be 64bits, how about simply stating that operationally 64 bit IIDs are
>> recommended. This eliminates the need to enumerate all the exceptions,
>> which probably isn't something an architectural document should be doing.
> 
> This would be a good way of dealing with this issue and you're correct
> to state that enumerating exceptions is something that ought to be
> avoided in architectural documents.

But what is needed is clarity in definitions, which is why I've been
asking what the low order bits in an IPv6 address are called in cases
where people claim they are not called an IID.

(My answer fwiw is that they are always called an IID, because once
you're on the final link, those bits serve only to deliver the packet
to the intended interface, so they must uniquely identify that
interface.)

    Brian

    Brian