>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:54:32 +1100,
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> If yes, is the requirement of "DAD **MUST** take place" acceptable? I
>> believe this is acceptable in essence, but I'd like to know this does
>> not cause a severe compatibility issue with existing implementations
>> that conform to RFC2462.
> My only concern would be whether or not there needs to be
> a requirement to defend LINKLOCAL::SUFFIX when configuring
> UNICASTPREFIX::SUFFIX.
> Otherwise, a configuring 'old DIID' node may not detect a collision
> with an existing '2462-bis DAD' node, since the former will only
> check the Link Local and the latter might not be defending that.
> (I'm thinking here of nodes which use RFC3041-like random
> or SEND-CGA-like hash generated addresses)
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"...)
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
