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

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>Here, I'm not trying to convince you that their view is correct.  To
>me, however, those "some people" and people like you or Brian have
>both some valid points, and it's not that one of the views is definitely
>correct and the other is completely wrong.  The difference of the
>views comes from the fact that RFC4291 or its bis is not super crystal
>clear and there is some possible inconsistency between it and other
>IPv6 RFCs, leaving questions like this one to one's interpretation.
>It seems that people believing one particular view tend to refer to
>some specific part of those RFCs or drafts or existing implementations
>that are convenient to reach their favorite interpretation, but the
>reality is that other interpretations can be quite possible.  I don't
>expect either group with a strong opinion to agree with the other, but
>at least unless they recognize both groups have some reason to believe
>a particular view, we will never be able to escape from this gridlock,
>at least in the scope of rfc4291bis.

Independent of what RFC 4291 currently says, I would prefer IID to only refer
to address configuration using SLAAC.

What we currently have is that requirements on IID depend on the use case.
If you use an IID in the context of SLAAC then we have one set of requirements
(link dependent lenght), if you use it with a /127 prefix or manual config
it's. This causes way too much confusion.

Then again I'm of the opinion that the relevant sections of rfc4291bis need
to be rewritten to be actually readable. The current text should not be
published as an internet standard.