>>>>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:37:16 -0700,
>>>>> "Brian Zill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> My take: given that it appears the majority of implementations currently
> do "DAD", and that "DAD" provides for a cleaner multi-link subnet
> architecture, I think "DAD" is the better choice.
(Aside from the point if multi-link subnet is a good thing or not), I
tend to agree your analysis and conclusion.
What is the "majority" can be controversial, but just for record, all
*BSDs (actually derived from a single codebase, KAME) always do DAD
for all addresses. Also, by watching the discussion so far, there
seems to be no implementation except Markku's that can be called
"DIID". At best, we saw implementations that enable the optimization
described in RFC 2462, which I don't call DIID in this context.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
