On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:56 PM, joel jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com> wrote: > On 2/3/13 11:39 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >> On 2/3/2013 2:36 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> On 03/02/2013 17:26, Joel M. Halpern wrote: >>>> >>>> To a significant degree Randy, I agree with you in your comment about >>>> magic bits. If I were designing IPv6 from scratch (counter-factual in >>>> so may ways at once) I would not do it that way. >>>> >>>> But, unless there is an actual problem with the design the IETF has >>>> adopted, I am reluctant to change it "just because". >>> >>> >>> Which is why the draft actually proposes nothing that would change >>> any running code. >>> >>> Brian >> >> >> But it does propose to change the spec. Why? What problem does changing >> the spec solve? > > If it prevents someone from ascribing new utility to these bit(s) in the > future that seems like a worthwhile goal. While I'm sure that we can come up > with new and different was to apply meaning to global unicast addresses I > think the world is a simpler place when we don't.
KISS is always a good approach - Keep It Stupid Simple, or Simple Stupid. (or in short, special meaning attached to bits seems to cause more confusion than good) And on the topic of DAD vs assume uniqueness - I learned this from an earlier colleague "To Assume is to make an Ass out of you and Me" -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
