On 02/04/2013 06:42 AM, Rémi Després wrote: > In this respect, changing now the IPv6 specification for hosts that > configure IIDs having u=1, although no serious need has been > identified, and this specification has ben used, would be in my > understanding very counterproductive: stability of already used > specifications is important for their success.
I strongly disagree. For many reasons, including: 1) What's broken, is broken. And if it's known to be broken, it should be fixed. 2) We do maintenance of widely-implemented, widely-deployed protocols. So I'm not sure why we should be scared about changing stuff in v6 (particularly when we're still at a point in which the v6 traffic is very small) 3) Whatever changes are needed should be done soon. The more we wait, the more expensive they'll become. Thanks, -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
