[ppml] Those pesky EUI-64's causing a shortage of IPv6 space (Was: [address-policy-wg] Those pesky ULAs again)

[Dan.Thorson at seagate.com]

Jeroen Massar said:
>
> But why would anybody want  to 'ban' EUI-64 configured addresses?
>
> Your own network is exactly that: your own network.
>
> There is *NO* requirement at all to use EUI-64.
 [snip]

OK, here's where I may express my ignorance... but RFC2373 explicitly
states:
(in section 2.4, just after the table of prefix allocations)

     (2) The format prefixes 001 through 111, except for Multicast
          Addresses (1111 1111), are all required to have to have 64-bit
          interface identifiers in EUI-64 format.  See section 2.5.1 for
          definitions.

To me that sounds like there is indeed a requirement to use EUI-64.  The
issue then becomes if you purchase a device which is RFC-complient then it
may not support non-EUI-64 addressing.  Right?

danT