Le 2013-02-04 à 11:32, Fernando Gont <fg...@si6networks.com> a écrit :
> On 02/04/2013 06:42 AM, Rémi Després wrote: >> In this respect, changing now the IPv6 specification for hosts that >> configure IIDs having u=1, although no serious need has been >> identified, and this specification has ben used, would be in my >> understanding very counterproductive: stability of already used >> specifications is important for their success. > > I strongly disagree. For many reasons, including: > > 1) What's broken, is broken. And if it's known to be broken, it should > be fixed. One has to come with a proof that reserving u=1 for universally specified IID formats is harmful. None has been seen. OTPH, 4rd is the first instance that shows it can be beneficial beyond its current application to IEEE derived IIDs. > 2) We do maintenance of widely-implemented, widely-deployed protocols. > So I'm not sure why we should be scared about changing stuff in v6 > (particularly when we're still at a point in which the v6 traffic is > very small) Different understanding. To me, standard modifications need serious reasons, and much caution. RD > > 3) Whatever changes are needed should be done soon. The more we wait, > the more expensive they'll become. > > Thanks, > -- > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
