I've just noticed that the latest draft of draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2 has not reflected a previous discussion.
See the first point of this: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg01005.html Rephrasing it for the latest draft would be as follows: In section 3.3, it states: 1. Process the Prefix Information Option as defined in [ADDRCONF], either creating a new public address or adjusting the lifetimes of existing addresses, both public and temporary. If a received option will extend the lifetime of a public address, the lifetimes of temporary addresses should be extended, subject to the overall constraint that no temporary addresses should ever remain "valid" or "preferred" for a time longer than (TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME - DESYNC_FACTOR) or (TEMP_PREFERRED_LIFETIME - DESYNC_FACTOR) respectively. The configuration variables TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME and TEMP_PREFERRED_LIFETIME correspond to approximate target lifetimes for temporary addresses. But "(TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME - DESYNC_FACTOR)" should actually be just TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME because there is no timing issue for regeneration on valid lifetimes. The main author at that time (Rich Draves) agreed this point: http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg01097.html Unless I miss something, I still believe just using TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME is more reasonable, and this document should incorporate the change before publication. (I myself had forgotten the past discussion, and have changed our implementation with the seemingly redundant DESYNC_FACTOR...) JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
