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

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

On 2004-02-29, James Kempf wrote:
> No, the SEND node performs DAD for fe80::C, where C is a function of the key
> and some other parameters. The [suffix] on LL addresses is also calculated
> from the key.

Hiya James, correct me if I'm wrong but the suffixes are both
calculated from the same key, but since the "other parameters"
are different, the suffixes will be different.

> 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
> address.

Yep, that's what I'm talking about too.

My assumption is that SEND WG will adapt to the changes that RFC2462bis
will make.  So if we tweak 2462 to require configuration of a link-local
address per suffix, SEND-CGA nodes will do this.  This will then prevent
(well, detect) collision as discussed above.

Why not just specify this in SEND then?  Well, because it's a DAD 
issue which applies to other protocols which would like to configure
one or more arbitrary suffixes, eg: privacy addressing.

-----Nick (who couldn't fit in the door at mip6!)

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