[Dang! I'd missed this thread under a pile of site-local discussion]
On Wed, Mar 26, 2003 at 09:40:05AM -0800, Charles E. Perkins wrote:
>
> Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>
> > how can you prevent random other node to assign P::X (which you are
> > using and verified fe80::X by DAD) on the interface? DIID does not
> > work in practice.
>
> That's not supposed to happen, because the other node would
> be prevented from autoconfiguring the corresponding link-local
> address.
So long as all nodes DAD for fe80::X before using Y::X, indeed.
And it seems to me that it's unsafe to do this any other way,
since there's plenty of stuff around doing "DIID". On the
other hand, the 3041 and CGA people are probably wondering why
they have to check this silly fe80::X first!
I myself am happy to go with whichever solution causes least
harm ...
> Perhaps you are suggesting that bad things can happen if
> nodes do not do DAD, or exhibit some other protocol violation.
Such as Optimistic DAD? I started on draft-moore-ipv6-optimistic-dad
shortly after Yokohama, where I got the impression that DIID
was on the way out. It's easily retrofitted to the DIID way of
thinking, Ed Remmell did this in his implementation.
I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the group ...
cheers,
Nick
--
Nick 'Sharkey' Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://zoic.org/sharkey>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
