Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote:
On 2004-02-27, Greg Daley wrote:
Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote:
- When configuring a global unicast address, the link-local address with the same suffix as that address MUST be configured and tested for uniqueness in order to maintain interoperability with RFC2462 behaviour.
I think that configuring additional addresses which don't match the prefix used to generate the suffix in the CGA is going to cause problems.
Good point. However, the MN registering A::X only needs to defend the LL::X against DIID-compatible nodes. I think we can assume that SEND-CGA nodes will follow the _new_ DAD standard. So the unsecured defensive NA should be okay, since it won't be needed against SEND-CGA nodes.
... I think. Any SENDites want to comment?
I'm not really a SENDite, but...
NB: Is there a plan for 3041bis? It's rather bound up with DIID too.
I think that you're right about this (! missed that) since the SEND devices will have distinct IIDs for each prefix anyway, DIID isn't useful for them.
It doesn't mean I like your solution... :)
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
