Hi.
Some thoughts below...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 18 August 2004 14:43
> To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
>
>
> I'm replying to some of the other points you made. I guess we may
> need a separate discussion for the rest, so I'll create dedicated
> entries for them in the issue tracker.
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:43:04 +0100,
> >>>>> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> > s.5.5: prefix Info options are not necessarily the only
> >> source of prefixes
> >> > for auto-configuration.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't understand the comment. Could you be more specific?
>
> > The first sentence of s5.5 implies that the only way to get
> a Global Address
> > is the Stateless Autoconfig way.
>
> > How about:
> > Once an interface has a link local address it can
> additionally acquire one
> > or more local use or global scope addresses
> > either through stateful or stateless autoconfiguration. In
> stateless address
> > autoconfiguration, global and local use addresses are
> formed by appending...
>
> First, let's just forget "local use" addresses here (whatever you mean
> by this). Those are not in the scope of rfc2462bis.
I was thinking of the new unique local use addresses (as per draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-05.txt).
There seems no reason why these sorts of prefixes shouldn't be auto-configured.
>
> Besides, the first sentence is not really accurate since a global
> address can be generated in concurrent with the creation of a
> link-local address. So, we can simply say:
>
> In stateless address autoconfiguration, global addresses
> are formed by
> appending...
>
> I don't mind to make this modification.
OK.
>
> >> > s.5.5.2: the second para implies that 2461bis should
> >> mention the ability to
> >> > manually configure a prefix in the default routers list
> >> (not currently
> >> > mentioned).
> >>
> >> Sorry, I don't understand the comment. Could you be more specific?
> >> Is this a comment on rfc2462bis in the first place?
>
> > Section 5.5.2 suggests that there needs to be a way to
> manually configure a
> > router/packet forwarder address (sorry I didn't mean
> prefix) in case a link
> > has no advertising routers. 2461bis doesn't mention such a
> capability - the
> > default routers list is built exclusively from RAs at
> present. Should we ask
> > for it to be added?
>
> I'm not really sure what you meant by "the default routers list is
> built exclusively from RAs at present", but it may make sense to say
> in rfc2461bis that there is no other way to configure the "forwarding
> node's address" automatically as a (possibly bad) effect of not
> sending RAs.
>
> In any event, I interpreted this is not a new issue for rfc2462bis.
>
> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
