The code I wrote for T64 does the same. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Markku Savela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:27 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: DAD vs. DIID > > > > From: Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > But it seems that there aren't actually any such > implementations, everyone > > I have seen who has reported has said they do DAD on all > addresses before > > configuring them. The fact that everyone did that was one of the > > motivations for the change. > > Here I have to raise a hand. I wrote implementation that actually > followed the allowed optimization: do DAD only on link-local, and then > freely combine that ID with announced prefixes WITHOUT doing a > separate DAD for EACH prefix*ID combination. > > This is still fully allowed by current RFC's, and I still believe this > is GOOD, and should not be changed. > > As a consequence, and observing that others may not have chosen this > tactics, the code also defends plain ID, that is: if it sees a DAD for > address which contains one of my ID's, it will reply to the DAD as if > I had the address. I don't see any catastrophic failures resulting > from it. > > >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
