Hi Thomas, I will make the changes.
John > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 29 September, 2003 20:52 > To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue22: 4.5.4 Default Address > Selection for IPv6 > - RFC3484 text > > > > > > 4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484 > > > > > > > > Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC-3484] SHOULD > be supported, if > > > > a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or > a node has > > > > more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) configured. > > > > > > > > If supported, the rules specified in the document MUST be > > > > implemented. A node needs to belong to one site, > however there is no > > > > requirement that a node be able to belong to more than > one site. > > > > > > This is really weasle worded. Is 3484 mandatory to > _implement_ or not? > > > You can't make its implementation dependent on whether there are > > > multiple addresses, since the number of addresses a node > will have is > > > not something an implementor will know, as it's an > operational issue. > > > Why do you say its weasley-worded? I take this as a strong > SHOULD. I > > imagine that a single purpose IPv6, like a sensor may, in > fact, have a > > single IP address. > > The current wording suggests that there are classes of devices that > don't need to handle multiple addresses (i.e., they will only have a > single address assigned to them). This (IMO) violates a core > assumption of IPv6, that all nodes need to deal with multiple > addresses. I'd like to see a better justification to allow this. So, > I'm not objecting to the SHOULD, I'm objecting to the suggestion that > some nodes won't need to support multiple addresses. > > Note: whether a site uses one or some small number of addressesd is an > operational issue, and can't really be a device implementation > decision. > > > Some text clarification may be OK, though, how about > > adding to the first paragraph the following text: > > > It is expected that most implementations will indeed > support this, as > > since the number of addresses a node will have is more of an > > operational issue. > > IMO, I'd like to see removal of all wording suggesting that it might > be OK for devices to support only a single address. > > Thomas > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
