> > I conceded that is probably true for most of the IPv4-Embedded IPv6 > > Address Formats in section 2.2 of RFC6052, but the /96 format seems > > indistinguishable from other IPv6 addresses with embedded IPv4 addresses > > described in Section 2.4.5 of this draft. > > > > Could we say that the IID is 64 bits long "for all addresses except those > that start with binary 000, and those that embed IPv4 addresses [RFC 6052]"? This is demonstrably false (there are lots of IPv6 interfaces with for instance /124 or /126 masks, among others). I don't expect all of these IPv6 interfaces to be changed to /64 even if an RFC says so. So the question is, what do you gain by stating this in an RFC? (I know, the discussion is old and I don't expect any views to change. It stills seems wrong to publish an RFC with such an obviously wrong statement.) Steinar Haug, AS2116