True, that is recommended as the default value. However, if a PPP link is to support the privacy extensions RFC3041, wouldn't the node have to perform DAD when generating an address using an interface ID different from the one negotiated during IPv6CP? Of course, if one node on the PPP link does not support RFC3046 (i.e., does not generate additional interface IDs), then DAD could still be avoided.

Regards,
Siva

At 01:35 PM 1/6/2003 -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND,
if necessary, for the particular link technology.  For
example, Section 5 of RFC 2023 (IPv6 over PPP) mentions
that DAD is redundant and needn't be run.

Regards,
Brian

Fred L. Templin wrote:
Margaret/others,
Margaret Wasserman wrote:

DAD is a link-local mechanism (uses link-local multicast
packets).  So, while it checks all addresses, it only
explicitly checks for duplicate addresses on the local link.
What about DAD for links that are unicast-only? Alternatives
I can imagine are:
 1. specify some sort of unicast mechanism for DAD
 2. perform some sort of multicast emulation (e.g., MARS)
 3. avoid DAD alltogether when one can assume that addresses
    are uniquely assigned within the site
Thoughts?
Fred Templin
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
6bone mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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