2013-02-07 14:41, Ole Troan <o...@cisco.com> : > Remi, > >> ... >>> with Remi's proposal, a duplicate address will not even be detected. >> >> Correct: even if software is available to detect collisions between 4rd >> addresses and RFC 4291-compatible host addresses, it won't detect any. (Such >> software, which isn't mandatory for 4rd, is of course not excluded either.) >> >> The simple reason for this non-detection is that these addresses have IIDs >> in disjoint sets. > > I think you have received quite a lot of pushback against creating disjoint > sets of IIDs.
Different understanding. - Those who have supported haven't needed to repeat their support (see names in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg17094, and one more in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg16972) - Those who have objected continue to receive answers to their concerns (the above being one instance). Besides, these remaining concerns are aside from the question asked by Softwire (whether reserving a subset of an IID range unused by RFC 4291 is compatible with the IPv6 addressing architecture). Regards, RD -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
