>>>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:59:17 -0800 (PST),
>>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The new section looks good but I think it should require that the host
> store the times when the address would become deprecated and invalid
> together with the address itself in stable storage.
> Without that an address might accidentally be used long after it has
> become invalid.
Good point, thanks. How about changing the first sentence of Section
5.7 as follows?
It is reasonable that implementations that have stable storage retain
their addresses and the expiration times of the preferred and valid
lifetimes if the addresses were acquired using stateless address
autoconfiguration.
Meanwhile, I have more fundamental questions:
1. it is probably not adequate to describe this in the body of
rfc2462bis, since it's a kind of extension, not a bug fix or a
clarification to the existing specification. Shouldn't we rather
move this section to appendix entitled (e.g.) "future possible
extensions"? Or should we describe this in rfc2462bis in the first
place? I myself do not have a particular preference, but if we
cannot reach consensus, I'd rather remove this section from
rfc2462bis.
2. this extension may conflict with the rule that "if no router
exists, then stateful configuration MUST be performed" (though we
are now discussing the requirement level on this). Assuming the
current requirement level, should we also describe the relationship
(or ordering) between the two alternatives? For example, should we
require that this extension (i.e., retaining the address) be used
only after the attempt of stateful address configuration fails?
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
