Hi Margaret,
Thank you for your clarification. I now get the point. > This change would modify the scope of that uniqueness > to be a subnet prefix, not the whole link. So, > within a set of interfaces using a particular > subnet prefix, the IID would identify a particular > interface. > > (..) > > OLD: IIDs are required to be unique on a link. > > NEW: Only complete addresses are required to > be unique on a link. > > Relaxing the restriction to the second case makes > the use of privacy addresses easier, I understand that there is no actual need to require /link IID uniqueness. Though, it is not entirely clear to me why the /subnet IID uniqueness rather than the /link uniqueness makes the case of privacy addresses easier. Robert -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
