> From: "Richard Draves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You are basically arguing for DIID (duplicate interface-id detection) > instead of DAD (duplicate address detection), by using DAD on the > link-local address to perform DIID.
I'm very much for the Unique Interface ID on a link (DIID?). I don't see any harm from such policy. It just greatly simplifies the matters. > It seems strange to me to perform DAD on a link-local address that is > not actually being used. For better or worse, it's not the architecture > that we have today and I'm not inclined to change it. It could perphaps be considered, that doing DAD (DIID) on any address on link, would automaticly also reserve the ID for all prefixes. If you don't do unique ID on link, every time a new prefix is announced by RA, there will be a flood of DAD's, as every host on the links is "dadding" their new prefix/id combinations. (And this will go on for global, site local prefixes or 6to4 prefixes. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
