Hemant Singh (shemant) writes: > I am certainly not suggesting using more than one Link-Local address for > a PPP client. All I am saying is if PPP uses IPV6CP and interface-id for > Link-Local address, it is a little odd to use DAD for rest of the > addresses assigned to the PPP client - the privacy and other addresses > that Dave alluded to.
I don't see why it's odd. Shouldn't we worry about misconfiguration for those addresses as well? Wouldn't it be "bad" if there were a conflict with both peers choosing to use the same non-link-local address? > I don't want to change PPP in such a radical way - > given the nature of the p2p link it's not so odd if Link-local address > is negotiated using IPV6CP and other addresses of the PPP client use > DAD. We should just make such facts clear in 2472bis. I suppose making it clear that addresses besides the link-locals are out of scope for IPV6CP would be helpful. (I thought that was clear enough from the existing text, but clearer still likely isn't wrong.) -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
