Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers
Draft of message to be sent after approval:
From: The IESG <email@example.com> To: IETF-Announce <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Internet Architecture Board <email@example.com>, RFC Editor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, 6man mailing list <email@example.com>, 6man chair <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers' to Proposed Standard The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Reserved IPv6 Interface Identifiers ' <draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-04.txt> as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-reserved-iids-04.txt
Technical Summary Interface Identifiers in IPv6 unicast addresses are used to identify interfaces on a link. They are required to be unique within a subnet. Several RFCs have specified interface identifiers or identifier ranges that have a special meaning attached to them. An IPv6 node autoconfiguring an interface identifier in these ranges will encounter unexpected consequences. Since there is no centralized repository for such reserved identifiers, this document aims to create one. Working Group Summary The 6MAN working group has done extensive reviews of this document and it reflects the consensus of the working group. Document Quality This document has been reviewed by numerous members of the email@example.com mailing list and by the 6MAN WG chairs. Personnel Brian Haberman is the Document Shepherd, and Jari Arkko is the responsible Area Director. RFC Editor Note Make this change in Appendix A: OLD: The following RFCs that generate interface identifiers need to be updated if they wish to avoid conflicts with the reserved interface identifier ranges. NEW: Implementations of the following RFCs need to be aware of the reserved interface identifier ranges when they allocate new addresses. Future revisions of these RFCs should ensure that this is either already sufficiently clear or that the text is amended to take this into account.