Re: comments on draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:07:52 +0200 (EET),
Pekka Savola <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > I'm afraid "has not been implemented" is too strong.  In fact, we have
> > "implemented" it in the KAME/BSD IPv6 stack in that we implemented
> > special restrictions (at that time) on anycast addresses and had
> > experimentally assigned subnet-router anycast addresses on PC-based
> > IPv6 routers.  In general, it's difficult to declare something hasn't
> > been implemented because it eliminates any minor implementation
> > activity, which is almost impossible to prove.
> 
> I agree that the wording is a bit strong, and I'm ok with weakening 
> it, but I've yet to see an implementation that enables it by default 
> or even by an enable/disable configuration directive.
> 
> AFAIK, on KAME/BSD it's "implemented" in such a fashion that the 
> operator must manually configure it with "ifconfig".  I wouldn't call 
> that "implemented" myself. At least on my FreeBSD 7.2 router, subnet 
> router anycast address isn't configured automatically and I don't even 
> see system configuration parameters (e.g. in init scripts) which would 
> change this.

I won't try to win the debate of the definition of implementation.
It was not my point that the KAME/BSD may implement it.  The point is
that the original wording of the draft was unnecessarily strong.  And
since we both seem to agree on that point, I think we are done.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.