Subject: rfc 2373 - 2.5.1 Interface Identifiers

From: Nilesh Simaria <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:45:13 +0530

Hi,

I have a question about RFC- 2373, 2.5.1 Interface Identifiers.

It says :
"The motivation for inverting the "u" bit when forming the interface
identifier is to make it easy for system administrators to hand
configure local scope identifiers when hardware tokens are not
available.  This is expected to be case for serial links, tunnel end-
points, etc.  The alternative would have been for these to be of the
form 0200:0:0:1, 0200:0:0:2, etc., instead of the much simpler ::1,
::2, etc."

I am not able to understand above paragraph of rfc-2373. Can someone 
please explain ?

TIA
Nilesh

-- 
IPv6 - Internet Reloaded.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:48:33 +0900

>>>>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 00:45:13 +0530, 
>>>>> Nilesh Simaria <[email-masked]> said:

> I am not able to understand above paragraph of rfc-2373. Can someone 

I'm not able to understand which part of the paragraph you did not
understand...if we did not invert the "u" bit in the interface
identifier and wanted to assign the identifier manually (for whatever
reason), then we'd need to set the bit corresponding to the "u" bit
since the identifier should not be global unique.  As a result, we'd
end up having less-readable or less-convenient address like
2001:db8::200:0:0:1 while we'd actually want to use a simpler form of
"2001:db8::1".

BTW, the explanation is almost same as what is written in the
RFC...(again, I'm not able to understand which part of the paragraph
you did not understand).

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 14:48:36 +0200

I agree that the explanation in the RFC is as simple as can
be written. In fairness to Nilesh, we should mention that this
was a controversial choice at the time, but that is what the
WG decided a number of years ago.

    Brian