Mika Liljeberg wrote: > > However I do think it's necessary to work out these details, and to > > make the changes necessary, rather than simply assuming > that one can > > "just use LL" or "just use PI" or whatever. > > It would be nice to see some of this happen. While the bulk > of the work is a matter for another WG, the addressing issue > clearly isn't.
To some degree the discussion is restricting the potential solution space by assuming that one has to choose between LL, PI, ??? . The state that was not discussed was arriving at 2 because the router crashed, while a new node comes up thinking the network must be in 1 because there is no RA. This is not a problem as long as existing nodes keep both the LL & RA derived prefixes, because the new node can talk to their LL address. The problem is that if the existing nodes are forced to choose a single address, they either break the existing app when the router crashes, or they refuse to talk to new nodes until the router comes back up or the lifetimes expire. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
