Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:32:26 -0700
From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| My questions were related whether that model should be our design goal.
Maximum flexibility. Long term we will find a way to use that.
This implies minimum assumptions, and even fewer unnecessary rules.
| Exactly -- and I am suggesting that there are enough IPv6
| addresses available so that there is no motivation to support
| the use of prefix{1,2}::1 for two different nodes on the same
| link. Maybe one of them could find a different interface ID.
You missed the point of the example. prefix1::1 and prefix2::1
were originally assigned to different nodes on different links.
Then the links were merged into one.
| I didn't yet see why enabling the behavior you suggest has
| any advantages.
The alternative is renumbering nodes sometimes. Not renumbering
is almost always an advantage. And here we're talking about the IID
part changing, so we don't even get the benefit of local connections
continuing to work using site local addresses - everything stops.
| Honestly, I think IPv6 would be better off by prohibiting
| this behavior.
I certainly disagree with that. I see no compelling reason here
to prohibit anything.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
