Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-02.txt

[JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@x#:H(B <jinmei@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:23:01 +0900, 
>>>>> itojun@iijlab.net said:

>>> ok, from the attached message, i can see which direciton you are going
>>> to.  i'll wait for the next revision.
>> 
>> The proposed revised text (the entire Section 5.4.5) is attached
>> below.  Is this acceptable?

> 	basically i'm happy with the text.  one thing boggles me is that
> 	the term "based on the hardware address" implicitly means "uniquely
> 	assigned hardware address", like MAC address, in the text.  hardware
> 	address may or may not be uniquely assigned (depending on underlying
> 	technology we will be using).  i'd love to see it clarified.

The simplest resolution would be to add a qualifier like this:

   If the address is a link-local address formed from an interface
   identifier based on the hardware address which should be uniquely
   assigned (e.g., EUI-64 for an Ethernet interface), IPv6
   operation on the interface SHOULD be disabled.

and to modify the 3rd part accordingly:

   On the other hand, if the duplicate link-local address is not formed
   from an interface identifier based on the hardware address which
   should be uniquely assigned, IPv6 operation on the interface MAY be
   continued.

I don't see the need for revising the 2nd part in this context:

>> In this case, the IP address duplication probably means duplicate
>> hardware addresses are in use, and trying to recover from it by	<---
>> configuring another IP address will not result in a usable network.

Makes sense?

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------