Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > Note: the document should be clearer that configured tunnels are typically 
> > point-to-point, and then you typically don't even need the link-local 
> > addresses, so this becomes practically rather irrelevant..
> 
> 	RFC2373/3513:
> 	    All interfaces are required to have at least one link-local unicast
> 	    address.
> 
> 	i guess what you are trying to mean is "don't even need to USE the
> 	link-local address of the peer, or the node itself".

Yep, of course.  The address is needed, but there's no use sweating too
much what it is if it shouldn't need to be used anyway (by users at
least).. :-)

Note: another thing to say is that if you have N v4 addresses, you 
don't have to generate a N link-local addresses.. should be obvious though 
:-)

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings