On Wed, 22 May 2002, Hesham Soliman (ERA) wrote: > > 3041 isn't really all that beneficial if IID part is > > already quite random > > (and is changing from time to time, e.g. in the scope of a > > day or week). > > => Agreed, but unfortunately it is left up to implementations, > so hosts can't really rely on the GGSN to do that. > So RFC 3041 might come handy after all.
If nothing can be assumed, then yes, I think it probably should be implemented. Turned on..? A different thing.. >Actually, as a side > node, I think 2462 should be deprecated and replaced by > 3041....please don't shoot! Where did I put my M16..... ;-) In the meantime, you might want to check out draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-00.txt .. there's an omission or two, but should be recommended reading for RFC3041 advocates :-) -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
