The efficiency depends on operator policy.
Sometimes we have to perform the DAD with all addresses.
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mika Liljeberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 3:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DAD in node requirements draft
On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 04:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> it makes more sense when rules are simpler. if you always
perform DAD
> you can always ensure there's no duplicate. even if machine A
is
> autoconfigured with prefix P::/64 and DAD-safe link-local
address
> fe80::ID, the other end could configure P:ID intentionally.
It would be more efficient to always do DAD with the link-local prefix
rather than full address, and just ensure that each IID is owned by a
single machine. I.e., if you configure P:ID, do dad with FE80:ID (unless
already done) and defend all X:ID.
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
