In your previous mail you wrote: > One obvious one is when I have two links, and have assigned pfx1::1 to > my favourite node on one of them, and pfx2::1 to my favourite (different) > node on the other, and then I decide to merge the links into one. Applying > both prefixes to the link is easy, so I shouldn't have to renumber anything > just because of this (pyhsical) change (maybe a temporary one caused by > the death of a switch, while waiting upon a replacement - assuming I'm > too cheap to buy switches that support vlans...). But now I have two ::1's > on the one link. But, even with DAD, you will have problems.
=> I have no problem... You are announcing pfx1 and pfx2 on the same link. Thus, because both nodes have id=1 => no, they have ids=something and addresses=pfx1::1 and pfx2::1 - both nodes will try to configure now pfx1::1 *AND* pfx2::1 and collide each other. => not if they don't try to configure all ids with all prefixes. - both nodes can now validly try to configure fe80::1, and collide on that => idem. - if a new pfx3 is announced, both nodes will collide on "pfx3::1" => idem. I'm not saying above is bad situation. It does require implementation to keep track of each combination, to remember wich prefix/id combinations have collided (or it has to keep a separate list of collided addresses, so that it doesn't try to reuse those combinations later). => obviously your assumptions about how the autoconf works are not shared. With DIID, you can remove the collided ID, and it will not be used. => with DAD, there is no notion of collided ID, only of collided addresses. IMHO the confusion comes from the current mixture of DAD and DIIDD. Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------