On 2004-02-23, Francis Dupont wrote: > [JINMEI Tatuya wrote:] > > > > - whether omitting/optimizing DAD is a good idea > > => IMHO this is the same thing, i.e., optimizing gives the same result > than omitting.
Omitting DAD altogether removes the ability to detect and correct address collisions, whereas optimizations such as Optimistic DAD mean that while there may be a short term disruption the problem will be detected and corrected. > > - (if yes) in which case we can omit DAD > > - DAD vs DIID > > => the last one finished by a decision (DAD, not DIID). I asked the > WG chairs to clarify this point at a previous meeting, cf > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/02jul/145.htm > look at "DAD vs. DIID Discussion -- Chairs", BTW slides are at > http://playground.sun.com/ipng/presentations/July2002/yokohama-dad-vs-diid.pdf Which is great, and will be even better when 2461/2bis are adopted, but there are already many implementations out there. Thus my suggestion in Optimistic DAD section 3.4 that when configuring an address PREFIX::SUFFIX, you should be sure toalso configure and check LINKLOCAL::SUFFIX. Is this going to be required by 'new' DAD? I'm not 100% sure about the DAD vs DIID changes yet. -----Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
