> From: Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'm not saying above is bad situation. It does require implementation > to keep track of each combination, to remember wich prefix/id > combinations have collided (or it has to keep a separate list of > collided addresses, so that it doesn't try to reuse those combinations > later). > > => obviously your assumptions about how the autoconf works are not shared.
IPv6 addressing architecture defines the process of combining prefixes and ids. Nothing in the RFC's prevents taking the interpretation I presented. It's correct, and perhaps a useful feature. > => with DAD, there is no notion of collided ID, only of collided > addresses. IMHO the confusion comes from the current mixture of DAD > and DIIDD. Well, right. Did I say anything else? This is discussion about two choices (1) do DAD, (2) require the ID part be unique (only one node can use) on the link. The current autoconf is basicly DAD. I just dared to propose that perhaps unique ID approach might be better solution. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
