Hi Robert,
>Though, it is not entirely clear to me why
>the /subnet IID uniqueness rather than the /link
>uniqueness makes the case of privacy addresses easier.
To ensure IID uniqueness on a link, a node that implements
privacy addresses would need to generate a link-local
address for each randomly generated IID (in addition to the
global address generated for privacy), perform DAD on
that address, and maintain that address for the lifetime
of the privacy address in order to respond to other nodes'
DAD messages.
If we only require IIDs to be unique within a subnet,
a node that implements privacy addresses will only need
to generate the single privacy address and perform
DAD for that address.
As currently document (prior to the discussed changes)
the privacy document is incompatible, in this minor way,
with the addressing architecture and the autoconfiguration
documents. We had two options for what to change:
- Relax the uniqueness restriction in the
addressing architecture, and make
a corresponding change to the
autoconfiguration document.
-OR-
- Modify the privacy address document to
require the creation and maintenance of
link-local addresses, as described above.
We had a consensus within the room in Yokohama to choose
the first option, and we are currently checking that
consenus with the list.
Margaret
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
