[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:
> >>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:54:32 +1100, 
> >>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <sharkey@zoic.org> said:
> 
> > My only concern would be whether or not there needs to be 
> > a requirement to defend LINKLOCAL::SUFFIX when configuring
> > UNICASTPREFIX::SUFFIX.

[...]

> Sorry, I don't understand the concern...by which scenario might the
> latter not be defending the link-local address?  (perhaps I don't
> understand what you meant by "defend"...)

Sorry, that's me being obscure:  By 'defend' I mean 'send an NA in
response to an NS for that address from the unspecified address',
eg: to 'defend' that address as being yours.

The scenario being that under non-IID based allocations such as
RFC3041 or SEND-CGA, a node offered prefixes A, B and C may
configure different suffixes X, Y and Z ... thus the addresses
A::X, B::Y, C::Z.

This breaks the old assumption that all allocated addresses (on
a given interface) will have the same suffix.  In order to 
defend the address C::Z from 'old-style DIID' nodes, the new-style
node would have to reply to NSs for LINKLOCAL::Z too.

I'm not sure that's explicitly explained in the text (maybe I've
just missed it?)

cheers, hope that clarifies things?

-----Nick

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