Subject: RE: (ngtrans) 6to4 gateway / 6to4 relay router IPv4-compatible IPv6 address interoperability concern ...

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:33:54 -0700

At 12:31 PM 6/11/2001 -0700, Dave Thaler wrote:
>Brian Carpenter wrote:
> > Would it be useful to specify how the interface ID is formed?
>
>I don't think it's necessary, no.
>
>Would it be useful even if it isn't necessary?  I don't know.
>It might make debugging marginally easier, but I don't think
>it really makes much difference.
>
>Also, Section 3.1 (which only talks about link-locals) refers
>to RFC 2893 section 3.7, which does specify how the interface
>ID is formed.  So in some sense the 6to4 RFC does tell how the
>router should generate an interface ID, although one could
>argue the current language doesn't apply to global addresses.

This get us back to the discussion we had in Minneapolis.
We need a way to identify a 6to4 router by it's IPv6 address.
We already have the beginning of the prefix 2002:ip:v4::/48
and a proposal for the 64 bit token based on the link local
address. What is missing is how to form a subnet ID.

         - Alain.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:09:35 -0500

> address. What is missing is how to form a subnet ID.

I'd vote for zeros.

   Brian

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:41:46 -0700

> > address. What is missing is how to form a subnet ID.

Look at draft-durand-ngtrans-6to4-well-known-address-00.txt

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 09:15:10 -0500

> Look at draft-durand-ngtrans-6to4-well-known-address-00.txt

Good enough. Can we make that a WG draft?

   Brian C