[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



> >>>>> 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.

	s/should be/should have been/ ?  (not sure)

> 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?

	yup.  thanks.

itojun

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