Robert Elz wrote:
>
> Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 11:12:41 -0700
> From: "Dave Thaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | Furthermore, there is a proposal under discussion to
> | not do DAD, except on manually assigned addresses.
>
> I think "under discussion" is a little much for that. There was
> such a proposal, but it really only existed (I believe) because it
> was the only practical way to make DIID work. When there was almost
> no support for DIID, that proposal became unnecessary, and since then
> (during the WG meeting at Yokohama, where this was raised, and then
> forgotten) there has been no discussion at all that I'm aware of.
>
> kre
>
I don't understand how not doing DAD relates to DIID. I thought
(possibly mistakenly) that the proposal that Steve Deering presented was
to do with eliminating the delay introduced DAD for addresses that are
unlikely to conflict with others, allowing faster aquisition of new
addresses (helpful for mobile nodes).
Brett.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
