Hi Brian,
Although I generally agree with your other thoughts on DIID vs. DAD, I don't understand these portions: >"DIID": > - Multi-link subnet routers would have to defend > link-local addresses across links, which could be > considered confusing and nonsensical. > >"DAD": > - No strange consequences for multi-link subnets. Why would performing DAD or DIID change the requirement for link-local address uniqueness across a subnet? And, even if it did, what does this really simplify, since site-local and global addresses will still have to be unique across a subnet? Since DAD neighbor advertisements are not sent to the target address, but are instead sent to the solicited-node multicast address derived from the target address, routers on multi-link subnets will already have to forward packets to the solicited-node multicast address between links of a multi-link subnet, so that site-local and global DAD will work. So, those routers would need to perform more complex processing, based on the target address within the NA, to _not_ forward link-local DAD packets across a multilink subnet. Am I misunderstanding something? 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
