Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-02.txt

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>]

>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:56:40 +0900 (JST), 
>>>>> itojun at itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) said:

>> The simplest resolution would be to add a qualifier like this:
>> 
>> If the address is a link-local address formed from an interface
>> identifier based on the hardware address which should be uniquely
>> assigned (e.g., EUI-64 for an Ethernet interface), IPv6
>> operation on the interface SHOULD be disabled.
>> 
>> and to modify the 3rd part accordingly:
>> 
>> On the other hand, if the duplicate link-local address is not formed
>> from an interface identifier based on the hardware address which
>> should be uniquely assigned, IPv6 operation on the interface MAY be
>> continued.

> 	s/should be/should have been/ ?  (not sure)

or "which is supposed to be uniquely assigned"?

I don't have a particular preference, but I'll use the last one if no
one else has a preference either.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------