Accidentally left original subject: out of original reply; sorry about
that. Comments in-line:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian Huitema
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ipv6@iet
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 04:08:01PM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
> I have integrated most of the changes I proposed to the ICMP Names
> draft. After my previous note on the subject, I had a lot of input on
> the tunnel endpoint text and determined that there was not consensus to add
> it to
Good thread. That was quick research into the Privacy draft Tim!
It sounds like we are all pretty much in agreement that:
*) generating private link-local addresses is a bad idea, and
neither the RFC or new Draft say to do it
*) generating private ULA's does make sense, just like private
globa
All,
I have integrated most of the changes I proposed to the ICMP Names
draft. After my previous note on the subject, I had a lot of input on
the
tunnel endpoint text and determined that there was not consensus to add
it to the document.
As this draft is now in the repository, Bob w
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of
the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Node Information Queries
Author(s) : M. Crawford, B. Haberman
Filename
Accidentally left original subject: out of original reply; sorry about that.
Comments in-line:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christian Huitema
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 3:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ipv6@ie
Hosts are not supposed to make any distinction between ULA and global
scope addresses. Hosts autoconfigure ULA addresses if the RA advertises
and ULA prefix. Thus, hosts that are programmed to generate RFC 3041
addresses for global scope addresses will do the same for ULA.
> -Original Message-
