>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:56:40 +0900 (JST),
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
