Jinmei, Dan,
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 09:08, JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote: > > I slightly recall discussions on the idea of the random identifier, > but I don't even remember if it was rejected. Could someone show us a > pointer? If it was not actually rejected, one possibility in > rfc2462bis would be to mention that kind of option as a future > possible extension (and as a beyond-the-scope thing). > > If the idea was actually rejected in the past and no one can provide > further information on this issue, then I regret to say this but I > must say I cannot do anything on this in rfc2462bis, especially > considering this is an old issue and we have been dealing with it > anyway (in a dirty manner). > My memory of the discussions regarding this issue are that the problem was asserted to be not enough of a problem to worry about. That is, an unofficial poll of the implementors on hand indicated that it wasn't a problem for their driver infrastructure. I am pretty certain that this discussion took place at an interim working group meeting in Washington at ISI, or possibly at LBL in the Bay area, and possibly continued on to one or more subsequent IETFs. Sorry I don't recall all the chronology and I don't have any pointers to records of the discussions. This issue has come up from time to time for us when using some hardware, drivers and OS's. We have worked around it but the methods have been unsatisfying. I agree that we are too far down the road to attempt an elaborate corrective like an identifier option for inclusion in RFC2462bis. I believe such a corrective, if done as a separate document, would have utility if it could be done in a way that was backward compatible with existing DAD implementations. Tim Hartrick Mentat Inc. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
