On 8/25/06 2:49 AM, "JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:08:55 -0400,
>>>>>> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> [...]
>
> I'm not sure if we want to discuss the other recommendations right now
> on this thread, but I'm going to provide short responses:
>
>> After re-reading draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-04.txt, I
>> think the Abstract is now fine. I would recommend changing the first
>> sentence of the Introduction to:
>
>> Stateless address autoconfiguration [ADDRCONF] defines how an IPv6
>> node generates addresses using information about available prefixes
>> obtained through Router Advertisement messages.
>
> I'm fine with removing the reference to DHCPv6, but then I'd like to
> change "how an IPv6 node generates addresses" to "how an IPv6 node
> autonomously generates addresses" so that the important characteristic
> of stateless address autoconfiguration is clear.
OK:
Stateless address autoconfiguration [ADDRCONF] defines how an IPv6
node autonomously generates addresses using information about available
prefixes obtained through Router Advertisement messages.
>> I recommend removing section 2.2 (as I did in the earlier post cited
>> by Suresh), as experience with IPv4 addressing has little bearing on
>> IPv6. This observation is bolstered by the text in section 2.3
>> describing the problem addressed by privacy addresses. For example,
>> a device gets an entirely new IPv4 address when it moves to a new
>> connection point, so tracking that device as it moves between connection
>> points is harder than in IPv6. And, I think there is a fundamental problem
>> that most IPv4 stacks and applications are built on the assumption of a
>> single address per interface, so privacy addresses would be hard to use in
>> any event. If section 2.2 is retained, some of the details should be
>> corrected; e.g., "Over the last few years, sites have begun moving
>> away from static allocation to dynamic allocation via DHCP [DHCP]."
>> sounds dated.
>
> I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I personally think the
> current text is okay as general background information, and it doesn't
> sound odd to me.
If the text is retained, it needs to be updated and corrected.
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> Communication Platform Lab.
> Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Ralph
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
