>>>>> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:23:01 +0900,
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>> ok, from the attached message, i can see which direciton you are going
>>> to. i'll wait for the next revision.
>>
>> The proposed revised text (the entire Section 5.4.5) is attached
>> below. Is this acceptable?
> basically i'm happy with the text. one thing boggles me is that
> the term "based on the hardware address" implicitly means "uniquely
> assigned hardware address", like MAC address, in the text. hardware
> address may or may not be uniquely assigned (depending on underlying
> technology we will be using). i'd love to see it clarified.
The simplest resolution would be to add a qualifier like this:
If the address is a link-local address formed from an interface
identifier based on the hardware address which should be uniquely
assigned (e.g., EUI-64 for an Ethernet interface), IPv6
operation on the interface SHOULD be disabled.
and to modify the 3rd part accordingly:
On the other hand, if the duplicate link-local address is not formed
from an interface identifier based on the hardware address which
should be uniquely assigned, IPv6 operation on the interface MAY be
continued.
I don't see the need for revising the 2nd part in this context:
>> In this case, the IP address duplication probably means duplicate
>> hardware addresses are in use, and trying to recover from it by <---
>> configuring another IP address will not result in a usable network.
Makes sense?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
