>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:44:08 +1100,
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> NB: Is there a plan for 3041bis? It's rather bound up with
> DIID too.
A quick response. I guess you are talking about the following part of
RFC3041:
Note: because multiple temporary addresses are generated from the
same associated randomized interface identifier, there is little
benefit in running DAD on every temporary address. This document
recommends that DAD be run on the first address generated from a
given randomized identifier, but that DAD be skipped on all
subsequent addresses generated from the same randomized interface
identifier.
(the last paragraph of Section 3.3)
However, RFC3041 actually has a successor,
draft-ietf-ipngwg-temp-addresses-v2-00.txt (expired for a long period
though), which reversed the logic:
Note: although multiple temporary addresses are generated from the
same associated randomized interface identifier, DAD should still
be run on every temporary address. Otherwise, it is possible that
two nodes will select the same interface identifier but not detect
the collision if they run DAD on addresses generated from
different prefixes.
(the last paragraph of Section 3.3)
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
