On 2004-06-02, Pekka Savola wrote: > > My concern with using the unspecified address comes from the > experience we had in MAGMA where we had to specify which source > address to use in the MLDv1 packets [...]
This is another one of those situations where I'm not trying to improve 2461/2 behaviour in any other way than making it faster! > > I (personally) tend to agree, but I (editorially) am trying to steer > > a course between paranoia and recklessness :-) > > Sure, but the main concerns about the need for DAD have come from the > manually configured addresses [...] Yep, which is why it's currently a SHOULD NOT in the draft. > Another potential scenario might be that the DHCP server is > reconfigured (one node removed, another added with the same address), > but the removed node still keeps its address and the new node will be > on the same link.. These kind of hopefully rare cases will still be picked up by OptiDAD and prevented from serious consequences ... if it wasn't for the rare cases, it wouldn't be worth doing DAD at all! cheers, -----Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
