Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64 interfaces?

Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl> Mon, 02 August 2010 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <teco@inf-net.nl>
X-Original-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: autoconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5302B3A6AB4 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 05:07:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id knOXadC-Oi83 for <autoconf@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 05:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3FB3A6BFC for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2010 05:07:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyb7 with SMTP id 7so1409424eyb.31 for <autoconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.213.31.129 with SMTP id y1mr3819695ebc.21.1280750854165; Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.4.99] ([77.61.241.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm8716002eeh.21.2010.08.02.05.07.33 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:07:33 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Teco Boot <teco@inf-net.nl>
In-Reply-To: <4C568726.1020307@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:07:32 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <26410CAF-6B3A-4AAF-B194-1C1F989F4E27@inf-net.nl>
References: <EBE1B970-DADA-4643-BB75-4EDEDE41F758@inf-net.nl> <4C568726.1020307@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: "autoconf@ietf.org autoconf@ietf.org" <autoconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Using DHCPv6 without link-local? Support only EUI-64 interfaces?
X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list <autoconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/autoconf>
List-Post: <mailto:autoconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf>, <mailto:autoconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:07:08 -0000

Op 2 aug 2010, om 10:51 heeft Alexandru Petrescu het volgende geschreven:

> I was thinking about the same thing as you say: if RFC5889 forbids link
> local addresses and new Charter wants DHCP then how could both work?

The document doesn't say "forbid".

Teco