On Mon, 2004-02-23 at 15:21, JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
> Having considered these points, possible resolutions *for rfc2462bis*
> that I can think of are:
>
> 1. harden the requirement: Each individual unicast address MUST be
> tested for uniqueness. No MAY for omitting the rule (i.e., remove
> it). We can use SHOULD instead of MUST if we need compromise.
>
> 2. MUST run DAD on all addresses for which the interface identifier is
> NOT globally unique (such as non EUI-64 ID). This is a proposal by
> Thomas Narten in June 2001. (see the issue tracker for more
> background information)
>
> 3. do nothing for this in rfc2462bis; leave Section 5.4 as is, do not
> add any text.
>
> 4. no change in the protocol specification, but add an appendix (or
> something) to discuss the issue on the effect of
> omitting/optimizing DAD.
Option 5, add the following clarification:
A node that has the configured address PREFIX::IID and follows the "DAD
all addresses" logic MUST defend FE80::IID as well as PREFIX::ID. A node
that follows the "DAD only link-local address" logic MUST defend all
addresses derived from IID.
The above will allow DAD and DIID to coexist peacefully.
My vote goes to option 5. Failing that, option 4 seems least
objectionable.
Regards,
MikaL
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
