> >>>>> 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.
s/should be/should have been/ ? (not sure)
> 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?
yup. thanks.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
