Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Comments on prefix format requirements

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:41:00 +0200

Le 28 juil. 09 à 11:14, Erik Nordmark a écrit :

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> I don't think that is quite the point. The point is that if (and it's
>> a big if) we ever try to retro-fit some form of 8+8 to the Internet,
>> the U flag needs to be trustworthy, since 8+8 requires universally
>> unique IIDs. That's an architectural change that IMHO is clearly out
>> of BEHAVE's scope and belongs in 6MAN. I see that Rémi D has started
>> a thread on that in 6MAN.
>
> Yes, we definitely should discuss this in 6MAN.
>
> FWIW I don't see any utility in remote interpretation of the U- 
> flag. It was added as a result of the 8+8/GSE discussion as being  
> potentially useful for multihoming.
> I've explored many different ways to do multihoming and read about  
> a few more,

> but I've seen no worked out proposal which would benefit from a  
> remote node using the U bit in the interface ID.

And the point is that for SAM, not only would it not be a benefit but  
it would prevent a simple design.
(BTW, your comments and/or questions on draft-despres-sam-03 would be  
most welcome.)

Regards,
RD