>>> Nobody even suggested that. For instance, if these addresses had a >>> lifetime (in the RFC4941 sense), they wouldn't be called "stable" in the >>> first place. >> >> I suggest that you add a discussion of site renumbering considerations. >> The problems described in draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem need >> to be avoided. > > Could you please elaborate what you have in mind? (i.e., how you think > this should be addressed, without rehashing the whole discussion in the > aforementioned I-D -- I guess one or two paragraphs, and a reference to > draft-ietf-6renum-static-problem?)
my understanding was that addresses based on these interface-ids would have the same address lifetime properties as RFC4861 addresses. is it the draft's reference to "static addresses" that creates the confusion? cheers, Ole -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
