I've found one more thing that may need a discussion on the
relationship between rfc2462bis and stateful address autoconfiguration
(DHCPv6).
RFC2462 currently says in Section 5.5.3 that
e) If the advertised prefix matches the prefix of an autoconfigured
address (i.e., one obtained
Jinmei,
That is, the valid and preferred lifetimes of an address configured by
DHCPv6 (the stateful protocol) can be updated by succeeding RAs.
Does this really make sense? For example, consider the following
scenario:
I personally think that it makes sense to keep this specification. The
I'm sorry to come up with a substantive comment late in the day,
since I very much like this document. This isn't a showstopper,
but I though it was worth mentioning:
12.0 Security Considerations
Local IPv6 addresses do not provide any inherent security to the
nodes that use them. They may
Hi all,
Russ Housley has updated his DISCUSS to be the following (Russ see question
in on point 2 below):
1) I had many, many comments on section 8.3. My comments were longer
than the section itself. Given that, I decided to provide replacement
text instead of the comments. The basis of
