I still liked my version better. - Bernie (from iPad)
> On Dec 16, 2025, at 5:19 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bernie Volz <[email protected]> wrote: >> If the client has not detected having moved to a new link but >> detects a significant change regarding the prefixes available on >> the link, the client SHOULD initiate one of the Renew/Reply, >> Confirm/Reply or Information-request/Reply exchanges. > > Maybe: > A client that believes it has not moved to a new link, but which > detects a significant change regarding the prefixes available on > the link, the client SHOULD initiate one of the Renew/Reply, > Confirm/Reply or Information-request/Reply exchanges. > > I am not super happy with "believe" here.. anthromorphizes. > > So maybe then: > A client whose link-change-detector [reference?] indicates that it > has not changed links, but which > detects a significant change regarding the prefixes available on > > >> A change is >> considered significant when one or more on-link prefixes are added, >> and/or one or more existing on-link prefixes are deprecated. The >> reason for this is that such a significant change may indicate a >> configuration change at the server. However, a client MUST >> rate-limit such initiation attempts to avoid flooding a server with >> requests when there are link issues (for example, only doing one of >> these at most every 30 seconds). > > > -- > Michael Richardson <[email protected]> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting ) > Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide > > > > > <signature.asc> -- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
