Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:58:41 -0700
From: "Richard Draves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Is there some reason that the more restrictive behavior specified in the
| draft is necessary?
I was thinking about a related issue earlier today, before reading mail,
and while I hadn't connected it to the temp-address draft (it wasn't
related to temp addresses) my conclusion was the same as yours - assigning
the same identifier to different links should be explicitly allowed,
attempts to avoid it are just plain silly. So, I certainly can't think
of a reason for that particular restriction. That is, your implementation,
as described, seems like it is the way it should be done.
For temp-address of course it doesn't really matter, Jinmei's implementation
is fine too - since it is a random number being created, no-one can tell
from outside whether that was done using 2 calls of the RNG, with the first
rejected (for any reason the node likes), or using 1 call that happened to
fluke upon a value that was acceptable. Only when the node starts running
the DAD algorithm can the address selected be observed.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
