On 12/18/2012 10:55 AM, Ole Troan wrote: >>>> Nobody even suggested that. For instance, if these addresses had a >>>> lifetime (in the RFC4941 sense), they wouldn't be called "stable" in the >>>> first place. >>> >>> I suggest that you add a discussion of site renumbering considerations. >>> The problems described in draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem need >>> to be avoided. >> >> Could you please elaborate what you have in mind? (i.e., how you think >> this should be addressed, without rehashing the whole discussion in the >> aforementioned I-D -- I guess one or two paragraphs, and a reference to >> draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem?) > > my understanding was that addresses based on these interface-ids would have > the same address lifetime properties as RFC4861 addresses.
Agreed. What I meant in my response to Hosnieh is that these addresses behave (in terms of lifetimes) in the same way as traditional slaac addresses, but do not vary over time as RFC4941-addresses. So it's not clear to me what's the concern here. > is it the draft's reference to "static addresses" that creates the confusion? I had the impression that Brian suggested to include something along the lines of "while having table addresses is nice, beware that you should probably not rely strongly on them being stable, since a renumbering event could make them change" (e.g., DNS is always valuable to contact servers, even if the addresses are stable, etc.). Maybe he can elaborate.... :-) Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
