[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ipng
Subject:    Re: Reserved interface identifier registry
From:       Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan () ericsson ! com>
Date:       2007-05-30 14:56:28
Message-ID: 465D909C.7090502 () ericsson ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi Pekka,

 > I will note that the draft proposed establishing an IID registry, but 
AFAICS doesn't specify that these must be excluded from 
auto-configuration or other such functions.  Or is such "exclude IIDs 
listed in the registry" specification expected to happen in the future, 
in revised protocol specifications?

Yes. This was the goal of the draft. To maintain a excluded IID list for 
both autoconf and stateful conf. But many people mentioned such a 
registry is not required. I am yet to be convinced.

 >
 > That was a main open issue I saw in the (short) draft.
 >
 > It would also have been useful if there had been more text to give 
guidance to the designated expert on in which cases it would be OK to 
accept a registration.  As the draft cites 'exceptional circumstances', 
maybe a higher bar (e.g., IETF consensus or Standards action) would also 
be possible.
 >

Sounds good. Actually, my goal was never but I thought it was too strong.

Thanks
Suresh


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]