In your previous mail you wrote:
> One obvious one is when I have two links, and have assigned pfx1::1 to
> my favourite node on one of them, and pfx2::1 to my favourite (different)
> node on the other, and then I decide to merge the links into one. Applying
> both prefixes to the link is easy, so I shouldn't have to renumber anything
> just because of this (pyhsical) change (maybe a temporary one caused by
> the death of a switch, while waiting upon a replacement - assuming I'm
> too cheap to buy switches that support vlans...). But now I have two ::1's
> on the one link.
But, even with DAD, you will have problems.
=> I have no problem...
You are announcing pfx1 and pfx2 on the same link.
Thus, because both nodes have id=1
=> no, they have ids=something and addresses=pfx1::1 and pfx2::1
- both nodes will try to configure now pfx1::1 *AND* pfx2::1 and
collide each other.
=> not if they don't try to configure all ids with all prefixes.
- both nodes can now validly try to configure fe80::1, and collide on
that
=> idem.
- if a new pfx3 is announced, both nodes will collide on "pfx3::1"
=> idem.
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.
With DIID, you can remove the collided ID, and it will not be used.
=> 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.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
