IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Detailed review of Significance of IPv6 Interface Identifiers

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Wed, 02 October 2013 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
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 99A6F21F9FAE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 QU1cbsrBA13c for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x236.google.com (mail-pb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD04421F8616 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 12:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id ro12so1353796pbb.27 for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=U3lOMqPPt/eicSM3mHJH2zDQ1ubAWDdWFkNMi865szg=; b=PPcc4mlKfuxzRsbCvWCBzjI0l0OB3LnIAiEy01n0+66dXosSmd+dtAyRPVa/KGNSPp c9WirFVdHKKr+X0m+ytK15vDsSj9IPkdlh2mWSuTPBqGkcjYLviSGMz7fZHxWCyfmaGY MG7KQuHNKgwnK1XNT2KGgXGFKftBMRxg5g6oAZr2t3ygVrq574ozh+vKJjaVnM5bxsKz QCCi4Rysn/0306pWmVq+/tuD4dlCJsGbZfaIbpZBSYdmZDtCYXchex6rxHfxC1+kfEyk YE0dT5U3JmslkwRGKSd+Oy4purY4AnOUM1xN4bYbeMD/cuGjc3vqhMiQmR4RrqKiCH9z 0PaQ==
X-Received: by 10.66.150.69 with SMTP id ug5mr5016576pab.55.1380742443538; Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (96.193.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.193.96]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xv2sm3556040pbb.39.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Oct 2013 12:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <524C752D.8090403@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 08:34:05 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
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> <524BCBFC.30001@globis.net>
In-Reply-To: <524BCBFC.30001@globis.net>
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 19:44:42 -0000

On 02/10/2013 20:32, Ray Hunter wrote:
>> 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).

Agreed. I have to say this was a surprise to me. I can't speak for anyone
else, including the designers of the Modified EUI format, but I was under
the delusion that the intent of 802.1 was u=universal=unique. Quoting
the DIX Ethernet standard dated November 1982, "A station's physical address
should be distinct from the physical address of any other station on any
Ethernet." I guess it was a mistake to go by that ;-)

    Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email