>>>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:18:06 -0400,
>>>>> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> 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.
Perhaps, but in any event I don't insist on a particular way, whether
to remove or keep this subsection (and with or without modification).
I'd basically leave the decision to the editor. Of course, I'm
willing to review the revised text if it's updated and a review is
required.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
