Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:42:07 +0300
From: Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| - Node B is the evil one :-).
I don't think we need to characterize them, no deicide which is misconfigured.
All that matters, is that you have shown what I thought - if we have
some nodes doing DIID (optimising away some DAD checks, as has been
permitted), and others doing pure DAD, we can get into problems.
It is (now) also clear that we have some implementations that work
both ways.
That's not good.
So, we need to require one or the other to avoid the problem.
The Yokohama meeting room's opinion was that "just DAD on every
address before assigning it" was the way to go.
Sure, in your scenario, that means node A might be left with no global
addr it can use. But that also might be what is intended to happen.
What's important is that the clash is recognised, and reported, so it
if something needs fixing, it can be fixed.
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
