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

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies



On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 15:21, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> Having considered these points, possible resolutions *for rfc2462bis*
> that I can think of are:
> 
> 1. harden the requirement: Each individual unicast address MUST be
>    tested for uniqueness.  No MAY for omitting the rule (i.e., remove
>    it).  We can use SHOULD instead of MUST if we need compromise.
> 
> 2. MUST run DAD on all addresses for which the interface identifier is
>    NOT globally unique (such as non EUI-64 ID).  This is a proposal by
>    Thomas Narten in June 2001. (see the issue tracker for more
>    background information)
> 
> 3. do nothing for this in rfc2462bis; leave Section 5.4 as is, do not
>    add any text.
> 
> 4. no change in the protocol specification, but add an appendix (or
>    something) to discuss the issue on the effect of
>    omitting/optimizing DAD.

Option 5, add the following clarification:

A node that has the configured address PREFIX::IID and follows the "DAD
all addresses" logic MUST defend FE80::IID as well as PREFIX::ID. A node
that follows the "DAD only link-local address" logic MUST defend all
addresses derived from IID.

The above will allow DAD and DIID to coexist peacefully.

My vote goes to option 5. Failing that, option 4 seems least
objectionable.

Regards,

	MikaL


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