Re: why 0xFFFE is used in the modified EUI-64 format

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> Mon, 19 December 2005 06:58 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoEyg-0006zV-FY; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:58:34 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoEye-0006zA-VR for ipv6@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:58:33 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA25634 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:57:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp ([202.249.10.124]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EoF0m-0007vU-Kj for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 02:00:47 -0500
Received: from impact.jinmei.org (unknown [3ffe:501:100f:1010:ddd9:9605:37b6:5576]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1F91521A; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:58:02 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:58:01 +0900
Message-ID: <y7vek49y3nq.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <43A0AF6C.1020907@ericsson.com>
References: <y7vvexyma2k.wl%jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> <43A0AF6C.1020907@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan.
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: why 0xFFFE is used in the modified EUI-64 format
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IP Version 6 Working Group \(ipv6\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

>>>>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:49:00 -0500, 
>>>>> Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> said:

>   I was confused by the same inconsistency couple of years ago and a
> thread resulting from my question failed to clarify the choice. I guess
> it is something we have to live with. You can look at this thread.

> http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg10039.html

Thanks for the pointer.  I now understand this was indeed discussed
before.  I agree we should live with the confusing choice as a
"de-facto standard" rather than tweaking the specification once again.

But...at the risk of causing unnecessary discussion, I wonder whether
we can clarify this point in the RFC based on addr-arch-v4 just saying
the method shown in appendix A actually is inconsistent with the IEEE
standard but the IETF has decided to accept it.  I personally think
this can be done as a part of final editorial work with RFC editor
before publication.  What do others think?

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------