IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> Wed, 02 October 2013 07:33 UTC

Return-Path: <v6ops@globis.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6317021E8254 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 00:33:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ADDrbTPGy95N for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 00:32:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from globis01.globis.net (RayH-1-pt.tunnel.tserv11.ams1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f14:62e::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35C4721E829E for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 00:32:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9433487003F; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:32:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from globis01.globis.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.globis.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KPjf8rxKgtTx; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:32:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Rays-iMac-2.local (unknown [192.168.0.3]) (Authenticated sender: Ray.Hunter@globis.net) by globis01.globis.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 72694870026; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 09:32:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <524BCBFC.30001@globis.net>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 09:32:12 +0200
From: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.8 (Macintosh/20130427)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers
References: <520B3529.80802@si6networks.com> <520BF653.8060603@gmail.com> <522309E1.7050806@globis.net> <5223EC0B.8080607@gmail.com> <5224284E.6020604@globis.net> <5224F28E.3040306@gmail.com> <5225D81F.6020009@globis.net> <524B4321.30309@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <524B4321.30309@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-ug@tools.ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:33:05 -0000

> Brian E Carpenter <mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> 1 October 2013 23:48
> I know that a couple of people wanted the extra details suggested by Ray
> below. However, the explanation that I got from the 802.1 liaison
> (see my previous message) seems to me to make the details unimportant.
>
> Regards
> Brian

I see your point.

The IEEE response makes it clear to me that the examples I provided are
all perfectly valid, and it also confirms a more generic conclusion that
it is incorrect to assume uniqueness when utilising a L2 LAN-scope
address beyond its intended scope (to form an IID).

-- 
Regards,
RayH

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email