Hello Subrata,
I reckon I am missing your point, so here is a request for clarification: "Dr. Subrata Goswami" wrote: > I agree with Dave that, doing a DAD for "link-local" type of post-fix > address is a unnecessary restriction. The choice seems to be to do DAD once for a "link-local" or "subnet-local" address (even if the node didn't configure one (?!?)), vs. doing DAD for _every_ configured address. So, the thing you label a "restriction" seems to bring a large measure of freedom, if I understand you correctly. > 1. There might be global addresss manually configured with the same > post-fix but with different pre-fix as the link-local address of a > node. What would HA do if a node like that moves into its territory ? The HA would deny that node use of the link. This is quite unlikely to ever happen, though. > 2. For 64-bit post-fix it would render 2**64 perfectly good addresses > useless. I don't understand what you mean here. Which addresses are useless? Regards, Charlie P. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
