>>>>> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 15:57:00 +0100,
>>>>> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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).
Yes, I know.
> There seems no reason why these sorts of prefixes shouldn't be
> auto-configured.
If we did that, we'd encounter a document dependency issue:
considering the fact RFC3513 (address architecture) is a normative
reference (which I think is reasonable), we'd also need to refer to
the unique-local-addr document as a normative reference, which does
even not yet become an RFC and is actually causing a discussion.
I don't think it wise to make a dependency on such a (still) stale
document, particularly because we are trying to recycle rfc2462bis as
a draft standard.
If we (some day) succeed to complete the unique-local-addr
specification, we can simply say there that "stateful address
autoconfiguration can be performed for the unique-local address just
like global addresses".
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
