On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 04:37:21PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > what are you trying to mean? optimistic DAD is not really accepted > wg consensus, no real deployed codebase...
Indeed it isn't :-) I think Daniel's point was that the possibility of address collision with stateful address autoconf is perhaps higher than that for stateless address autoconf, due to the possbility of human (developer, sysadmin, user) error. I'm not sure than this is true for this situation, but that's probably why it's in the draft. -----Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
