Re: WG ACTION: 2 weeks to discuss [LL65] Need a requirement for multihomed hosts

My point was this. The document *already* says:

>   If a host has two interfaces on the same network, then claiming and
>   defending on those interfaces must ensure that they end up with
>   different addresses just as if they were on different hosts.

If we say they "must ensure that they end up with different addresses" 
via the usual claiming and defending process, then why not just take the 
next logical step and say they must not try to claim the same address on 
two interfaces in the first place?

Why try something that you know is supposed to fail?

Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer, Inc.
 * www.stuartcheshire.org