[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies



On 2004-02-26, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
> 
> So far, I've not seen an objection to Option 1, and two people
> (Francis and Jari) seem to agree on this approach.
[...]
> Can we live with this simple resolution?

I don't object to Option 1 either, and I think the standard has
to be made clearer on exactly what needs to be done.

> If yes, is the requirement of "DAD **MUST** take place" acceptable?  I
> believe this is acceptable in essence, but I'd like to know this does
> not cause a severe compatibility issue with existing implementations
> that conform to RFC2462.

My only concern would be whether or not there needs to be 
a requirement to defend LINKLOCAL::SUFFIX when configuring
UNICASTPREFIX::SUFFIX.

Otherwise, a configuring 'old DIID' node may not detect a collision
with an existing '2462-bis DAD' node, since the former will only
check the Link Local and the latter might not be defending that.

(I'm thinking here of nodes which use RFC3041-like random
or SEND-CGA-like hash generated addresses)

-----Nick

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------