In your previous mail you wrote: > 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. The problem is that RFC 3041 should require any such node to first acquire rights to the link-local address. I hope that is viewed as an omission, and one which can be quickly repaired. => this point is clearly at the advantage of the DIIDD option but don't forget a direct consequence of to choose DIIDD is the MN returning back to home should use an alternative IID (a RFC 3041 one for instance) because its `own' IDD is defended by the HA until the deregistration succeeds: this is clean, easy to implement/understand but costs a DAD (oups, a DIIDD :-) for the temporary IID check in all cases...
Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
