Subject: Node Req: Issue22: 4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484 text

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 14:40:36 +0300

> > 4.5.4 Default Address Selection for IPv6 - RFC3484
> > 
> >  Default Address Selection for IPv6 [RFC-3484] SHOULD be supported, if
> >  a node has more than one IPv6 address per interface or a node has
> >  more that one IPv6 interface (physical or logical) configured.
> > 
> >  If supported, the rules specified in the document MUST be
> >  implemented. A node needs to belong to one site, however there is no
> >  requirement that a node be able to belong to more than one site.
> 
> This is really weasle worded. Is 3484 mandatory to _implement_ or not?
> You can't make its implementation dependent on whether there are
> multiple addresses, since the number of addresses a node will have is
> not something an implementor will know, as it's an operational issue.

Why do you say its weasley-worded?  I take this as a strong SHOULD.  I
imagine that a single purpose IPv6, like a sensor may, in fact, have a
single IP address. Some text clarification may be OK, though, how about
adding to the first paragraph the following text:

    It is expected that most implementations will indeed support this, as 
    since the number of addresses a node will have is more of an 
    operational issue.

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 13:52:12 -0400

> single IP address.

The current wording suggests that there are classes of devices that
don't need to handle multiple addresses (i.e., they will only have a
single address assigned to them). This (IMO) violates a core
assumption of IPv6, that all nodes need to deal with multiple
addresses. I'd like to see a better justification to allow this. So,
I'm not objecting to the SHOULD, I'm objecting to the suggestion that
some nodes won't need to support multiple addresses.

Note: whether a site uses one or some small number of addressesd is an
operational issue, and can't really be a device implementation
decision.

> Some text clarification may be OK, though, how about

>     since the number of addresses a node will have is more of an 

IMO, I'd like to see removal of all wording suggesting that it might
be OK for devices to support only a single address.

Thomas