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

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies

> From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>

> basically, you seem to argue for DIID (against) DAD.  Though I agree
> that DIID vs DAD is somewhat controversial and there is surely a
> tradeoff between those two, I believe the wg consensus was we should
> honor DAD rather than DIID (as Francis showed some pointers).  And, I
> don't see the need for revisiting the discussion.

Yes, DIID probably (or something similar). I believe that simplest
solution is that a specific ID value can be allowed only for single
node on the link. Any use of same ID part with any prefix by another
node should be viewed as an address collision.

I've expressed this opinion years ago, on this list and elsewhere. So
assumed my "vote" would have already been noted. But, I guess one
needs to repeat opinion at least once per week, to be noted. It is
very frustrating to see incorrect (IMHO) decisions being made by

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