On 12/18/2012 11:35 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> Agreed. What I meant in my response to Hosnieh is that these addresses >> behave (in terms of lifetimes) in the same way as traditional slaac >> addresses, but do not vary over time as RFC4941-addresses. >> >> So it's not clear to me what's the concern here. > > The concern is that we are still mainly ignoring the renumbering > problem, and in some years time this will be serious for users. > But if you add "From the point of view of renumbering, these addresses > behave like RFC4941 addresses" the point is covered.
I think this should be RFC4862 rather than RFC4941. SO, how about this text in the intro to address the point you've raised: "Form the point of view of renumbering, these addresses behave as the traditional addresses resulting from SLAAC [rfc4862]" ? Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
