Yes, thanks. Regards Brian Carpenter
On 18/12/2012 14:53, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 12/18/2012 11:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> 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. >> The concern is that we are still mainly ignoring the renumbering >> problem, and in some years time this will be serious for users. >> But if you add "From the point of view of renumbering, these addresses >> behave like RFC4941 addresses" the point is covered. > > I think this should be RFC4862 rather than RFC4941. SO, how about this > text in the intro to address the point you've raised: > > "Form the point of view of renumbering, these addresses behave as the > traditional addresses resulting from SLAAC [rfc4862]" > > ? > > Thanks! > > Best regards, -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
