On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 05:55:39PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > I'm not an "expert" on the WIDE implementation (any more), but I know > the implementation well enough that I can clarify the points, so... > > Your understanding about the Confirm message processing of the WIDE > server is correct. (And I don't think this way of handling Confirm is > really an appropriate behavior).
I think the authors also placed a "XXX" comment on the relevant sources, so there appears to be some agreement with you there. But it's not like I'm not guilty of the same thing sometimes. > The WIDE server implementation doesn't care about the link prefix when > assigning an address from a pool. This is also not an appropriate > behavior because it could assign an address that is not valid for the > link to which the client is attached. Thank you Jinmei, my curiosity is sated. So my understanding is that it chooses addresses to allocate based upon which interface it received the message on. > IMO, this discussion is going to miss the point. My intent is to clear up what I perceive to be technical errors (others' or my own), not to argue the main points. If there's some overlap, real or perceived, that is my error. -- Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul. Why settle for the lesser evil? https://secure.isc.org/store/t-shirt/ -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Software Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins
pgpHxHuMGwrF5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
