Hi Charlie, Sorry for the late reply.
> => I think the HA must defend all addresses, including > the link-local one. This is related to RFC3041 and > Francis' discussion on the IPv6 list. A node implementing > RFC 3041 might form a global address that belongs to one of > the other MN's Home addresses. Hence, if the HA does not > defend all addresses, a MN might 'lose' one of its > home addresses to another node on the home link. I'd rather prohibit such behavior. I don't see the need for it. I am surprised that RFC 3041 would allow such behavior. Can you point out the offending part of the specification? What was the justification for enabling this? Aren't there "enough" random numbers in 2^64 to avoid clobbering addresses used byHi Charlie other nodes? sheesh... => RFC 2462 makes an optimisation (not a good one IMHO) that if a node does DAD on link-local addresses, it 'owns the interface id' for any other address with any scope. RFC3041 says that a node can generate a new iid and does DAD for _that_ address which uses the new iid. Since this is typically not a link local address, you could get a conflict if the HA does not defend all addresses. For more info, see Francis' thread on 'diid'. I won't be able to relpy quickly at least till monday. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
