Following up with a personal comment.
The draft allocates an interface ID and an EUI-64 MAC identifier from the IANA
block. These are two separate, unrelated allocations.
The main criticism in RFC 5453 for making additional interface ID allocations
is that old implementations do not know about them and may collide when making
an allocation. I'm wondering if it would be better to allocate an interface ID
that is based on the allocated EUI-64 identifier per RFC 2464? Then we would at
least use the same format as other interface IDs and a collision would likely
mean inappropriate use of the IANA EUI-64 identifiers. Note that privacy and
cryptographic addresses set the u/l bit to zero, whereas EUI-64 interface IDs
usually have it at one. Sri's draft is silent on what kind of number should be
allocated for the interface ID, perhaps some guidance here would be useful.
Not that collisions are likely in 2^64 space anyway, maybe I'm worried about
nothing.
Jari
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf