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

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies

Hi Sharkey,

Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote:
> On 2004-02-27, Greg Daley wrote:
>>Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote:
>>>  - When configuring a global unicast address, the link-local
>>>    address with the same suffix as that address MUST be configured
>>>    and tested for uniqueness in order to maintain interoperability
>>>    with RFC2462 behaviour.
>>I think that configuring additional addresses which
>>don't match the prefix used to generate the suffix in
>>the CGA is going to cause problems.
> Good point.  However, the MN registering A::X only needs to
> defend the LL::X against DIID-compatible nodes.
> I think we can assume that SEND-CGA nodes will follow the
> _new_ DAD standard. So the unsecured defensive NA should be okay,
> since it won't be needed against SEND-CGA nodes.
> ... I think.  Any SENDites want to comment?

I'm not really a SENDite, but...

> NB:  Is there a plan for 3041bis?  It's rather bound up with
> DIID too.

I think that you're right about this (! missed that)
since the SEND devices will have distinct IIDs for each
prefix anyway, DIID isn't useful for them.

It doesn't mean I like your solution... :)


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