>>>>> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:53:37 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Another point. Any reason why autoconfiguration with DAD is not possible even if N
>> is > 118? Maybe this was already discussed.
> I'm not really sure about the point....first, this is only related to
> link-local addresses. Secondly, the discussion here is irrelevant to
> DAD.
Hmm, perhaps your point is something like this:
if N is > 118, simply use the rightmost 118bits of the interface
identifier following the link-local prefix fe80::/10. If the
shortened interface identifier collides with others, DAD will detect
it as a duplicate of the entire address. If DAD completes
successfully, we can simply use the address with the shortened IFID.
I don't know if this was discussed in the past, but I'd first like to
point out that this (= shortening the long IFID) can be regarded as a
kind of "manual configuration":
If the interface identifier is more than 118
bits in length, autoconfiguration fails and manual configuration is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
required.
(from RFC2462, but rfc2462bis will have a similar sentence)
So, there is nothing that (at least explicitly) prohibits this
operation in RFC2462 or in rfc2462bis.
(I would personally not use this type of "semi-auto" manual
configuration in this case though).
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------
