Hello Dave,
Actually, I would be in favor of making link-local to be the same as "subnet-local". I don't see the advantage in making any distinction. And, I think that the advantage of only having to do DAD for a single address per subnet is a very good advantage, one that turns out to be especially handy for mobile nodes while they are traveling. In fact, I would say that not having this feature is tantamount to restricting mobile nodes to a single home address. Otherwise, it gets to be too much work for the home agent. Am I missing some good feature that results from making the distinction? Regards, Charlie P. Dave Thaler wrote: > As mentioned in email I sent a week or two back, this is > related to the issue of whether a link-local address has to be > unique across an entire subnet, not just a link. Today it's > defined as a "link-local" not a "subnet-local" address. This > means that it is not guaranteed to be unique across a subnet. > > Manually configured global addresses don't need to require > rights to the corresponding link-local address since > a) it's not necessary as they don't use the link-local address, > b) it's not sufficient since they need to be unique across the > subnet, not just the link. > > So unless you're proposing we redefine "link-local" addresses > as "subnet-local" addresses (which would at least be a > consistent argument, albeit a change to the architecture), > then what you suggest does not seem to me to be the right solution. > > -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
