Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 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.

But I assume we are all in agreement that this is not supported by any
of the relevant specs. It is not necessarily forbidden by any spec,
but it is not suggested that this  be done in any spec. Yours is the
first implementation that I've heard that has done this.

Note: one thing we could all be better about is defining just what
"DAD vs. DIID" means.

Some people seem to think that that DIID means "for every address,
also create a link-local address and run DAD on it too." This in
general, will achieve DIID. But this is not required by the specs
today, and folks have consistently objected that requiring every
address also be assigned a corresponding LL address is being
unreasonable. There are also other ways of achieving DIID.

There is also Markku's variant.

One could also imagine modifying ND so that comparisons were done on
the IID part alone (in some or all cases). But this has the issue of
possibly not being backwards compatable with existing
implementations. 

Some also seem to be saying (???) that if one runs DAD on all
addresses, that's DIID. But I don't think so. That just means you are
doing DAD on all addresses. You can still end up with different nodes
using different addresses but sharing an IID (I'm not saying this is
necessarily good/desirable, but it is not ruled out).

So for those who are advocating some sort of DIID, please be very
clear about what it is you are calling for. Just saying "I'm for DIID"
isn't specific enough. 

Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to