On 2024-04-28, at 16:38, Esko Dijk <esko.d...@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote:
>
> Just noting that the naming in RFC 4944 may confuse some readers: both bits
> are now named "U/L bit". The complemented bit could have been named "L/U
> bit" instead; or "the bit in the U/L bit position". Also the RFC 2464
> reference URL to the "Guidelines for EUI-64" document is not valid anymore.
> There's a 2017 version located at:
> https://standards.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/import/documents/tutorials/eui.pdf
>
Other IP over foo documents also simply talk about »complementing the
"Universal/Local" (U/L) bit«, e.g.:
rfc3164 "The Interface Identifier [AARCH] for an IEEE1394 interface is formed
from the interface's built-in EUI-64 identifier by complementing the
"Universal/Local" (U/L) bit, "
rfc4338 ("OUI with complemented U/L bit")
(Weird Exception: HIPPI...)
I don't find any mention of an L/U bit.
Instead, other documents just talk about a »“u” bit«.
rfc2373 "It is required that the "u" bit
(universal/local bit in IEEE EUI-64 terminology) be inverted when
forming the interface identifier from the EUI-64. The "u" bit is set
to one (1) to indicate global scope, and it is set to zero (0) to
indicate local scope.""
rfc4291 "Modified EUI-64 format interface identifiers are formed by inverting
the "u" bit (universal/local bit in IEEE EUI-64 terminology) when
forming the interface identifier from IEEE EUI-64 identifiers. In
the resulting Modified EUI-64 format, the "u" bit is set to one (1)
to indicate universal scope, and it is set to zero (0) to indicate
local scope. The first three octets in binary of an IEEE EUI-64
identifier are as follows:"
So I continue to believe no change is required.
(The need for updating a reference isn’t an erratum, is it?)
Grüße, Carsten
_______________________________________________
6lo mailing list
6lo@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
