----- Original Message -----
From: "James Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IPV6 WG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: SEND/DIID interoperabilility (was: Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275]
DAD text inconsistencies)
> > We have two nodes, a "SEND node" and a "DIID node".
> >
> > SEND node:
> > - (for simplicity) do not implement the DIID-style optimization
> > - have an (e.g.,) EUI-64 based interface identifier, I.
> > - configure a SEND (CGA) address P:A (where A is the identifier, A !=
I)
> >
> > DIID node
> > - implement the DIID-style optimization
> > - (for simplicity) do not implement SEND
> > - happen to have A as an interface identifier
> >
> > The SEND node comes to a link. It perform DAD for both fe80::I and
> > P:A, and confirms that these are unique.
> >
>
> No, the SEND node performs DAD for fe80::C, where C is a function of the
key
> and some other parameters. The prefix on LL addresses is also calculated
> from the key.
>
Sorry, I meant suffix.
jak
> > Then the DIID node comes to the same link. It performs DAD for
> > fe80::A, and confirms it is unique. So the DIID node start using
> > P:A without doing DAD while P:A is actually duplicate.
> >
>
> Yes, that's the concern. If the DIID node comes on the link second, then
it
> will assume that A is a unique prefix even though it only DADs it for the
LL
> address.
>
> jak
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
