(Confirming a couple of other minor things)
>>>>> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:45:52 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> s.5.3: Putting the value of the link local prefix in explicitly makes a
>> potential double maintenance problem.
> I tend to agree. I'll try to revise the text without hardcoding the
> particular prefix of "FE80::" and the constant length of 10 bits.
I'm going to change the part to:
A link-local address is formed by prepending the well-known
link-local prefix [RFC3513] (of appropriate length) to the interface
identifier. If the interface identifier has a length of N bits, the
interface identifier replaces the right-most N zero bits of the
link-local prefix. If the sum of the link-local prefix length and N
is larger than 128, autoconfiguration fails and manual configuration
is required. [...snip]
>> s.5.4 (first two sentences): The meaning is not very easy to parse - on
>> coming back to them I at first thought they conflicted. How about:
> (snip)
> Okay. Thanks for the suggestion.
In the revised text, I'll simply concentrate on resolving the point
that the original text could be interpreted as conflict:
Duplicate Address Detection MUST be performed on all unicast
addresses prior to assigning them to an interface, regardless of
whether they are obtained through stateful, stateless or manual
configuration, with the following exceptions:
- An interface whose DupAddrDetectTransmits variable is set to zero
does not perform Duplicate Address Detection,
- Duplicate Address Detection MUST NOT be performed on anycast
addresses, and
- Each individual unicast address ...
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
