>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:15:08 +1100,
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Sorry, I don't understand the concern...by which scenario might the
>> latter not be defending the link-local address? (perhaps I don't
>> understand what you meant by "defend"...)
> Sorry, that's me being obscure: By 'defend' I mean 'send an NA in
> response to an NS for that address from the unspecified address',
> eg: to 'defend' that address as being yours.
> The scenario being that under non-IID based allocations such as
> RFC3041 or SEND-CGA, a node offered prefixes A, B and C may
> configure different suffixes X, Y and Z ... thus the addresses
> A::X, B::Y, C::Z.
> This breaks the old assumption that all allocated addresses (on
> a given interface) will have the same suffix. In order to
> defend the address C::Z from 'old-style DIID' nodes, the new-style
> node would have to reply to NSs for LINKLOCAL::Z too.
> I'm not sure that's explicitly explained in the text (maybe I've
> just missed it?)
> cheers, hope that clarifies things?
Honestly, I was not 100% sure about the point when I first saw the
message. But I think I now understand it by the succeeding messages
in this thread.
Thanks for the elaboration.
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
