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

Re: SEND/DIID interoperabilility (was: Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies)

> We have two nodes, a "SEND node" and a "DIID node".
> SEND node:
>   - (for simplicity) do not implement the DIID-style optimization
>   - have an (e.g.,) EUI-64 based interface identifier, I.
>   - configure a SEND (CGA) address P:A (where A is the identifier, A != I)
> DIID node
>   - implement the DIID-style optimization
>   - (for simplicity) do not implement SEND
>   - happen to have A as an interface identifier
> The SEND node comes to a link.  It perform DAD for both fe80::I and
> P:A, and confirms that these are unique.

No, the SEND node performs DAD for fe80::C, where C is a function of the key
and some other parameters. The prefix on LL addresses is also calculated
from the key.

> Then the DIID node comes to the same link.  It performs DAD for
> fe80::A, and confirms it is unique.  So the DIID node start using
> P:A without doing DAD while P:A is actually duplicate.

Yes, that's the concern. If the DIID node comes on the link second, then it
will assume that A is a unique prefix even though it only DADs it for the LL


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