Erik Nordmark wrote: > > In my memory, > > IPv6 guys also agreed on our view during the 54th IETF meeting. > > > > I think .. > > RFC3306 needs allocation server of 32bit goup ID > > in order to support the uniqueness in the site. > > This site is identified by network prefix. > > > > But, > > Group ID Autoconfiguration in link-scope will be valuable > > without help of allocation server. > > Each node in our draft allocates group ID independently. > > I understand that link-scope has benefits over unicast-prefix for scope <=2. > So saying "it is preferred to use ..." or "recommended" would seem ok. > But saying "MUST" - meaning a prohibitation of using unicast-prefix - > seems much to strong unless there are arguments that unicast-prefix > is "broken" (not just "suboptimal") for those scopes.
ok, I think it is a good clarification. Thanks, Myung-Ki. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
