Hi, Mikael, On 09/03/2011 08:17 a.m., Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: >> I recommend that folks read the above draft. I haven't seen the >> I-D announcement get cross-posted to the IPv6 WG, perhaps due to >> the volume of recent I-D postings, and the topic seems relevant. > > I don't think it solves what it thinks it solves, but if this REALLY > should be implemented, it's my initial thinking that the H flag should > be a MUST demand to only have ONE and only one MAC-based IPv6 address > according to EUI64.
Not sure what you mean... If H is set, why should we prevent generation of MAC-based addresses of different scopes? > I would appreciate some reasoning in the draft why > this was chosen as a SHOULD option. Because a "SHOULD" allows the host to override this policy if it has good reasons to do so. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: ferna...@gont.com.ar || fg...@acm.org PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
