On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:03:59 +0900 (JST), "Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Agreed. It is Duplicate ADDRESS Detection, so disabling the address
> > is reasonable, disabling the interface is probably too strong.
>
> re-read the exact text, and i think the above makes sense.
>
> so proposed change: the last part should be changed to "the
> interface address SHOULD be disabled". (add "address")
Some explanatory text will be needed regarding the semantics of a
"disabled" address, and further actions. Points to be discussed
will include:
1) How long should an address be disabled for - permanent, or timer
based? A timer based disabling mechanism might be useful in case
the user is not able to generate an IID, and wants to re-enable
the address.
2) If the disabled address is a static address, then how should
the user be informed? This one should probably be documented in
some API document, though I doubt if it is in the purview of an
IETF document.
3) Points raised by Thomas - recommendation for generation of new
IID's, and frequency at which the retries (with new IID's)
shall be done.
CP
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
