On 2004-02-26, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote: > > So far, I've not seen an objection to Option 1, and two people > (Francis and Jari) seem to agree on this approach. [...] > Can we live with this simple resolution?
I don't object to Option 1 either, and I think the standard has to be made clearer on exactly what needs to be done. > If yes, is the requirement of "DAD **MUST** take place" acceptable? I > believe this is acceptable in essence, but I'd like to know this does > not cause a severe compatibility issue with existing implementations > that conform to RFC2462. My only concern would be whether or not there needs to be a requirement to defend LINKLOCAL::SUFFIX when configuring UNICASTPREFIX::SUFFIX. Otherwise, a configuring 'old DIID' node may not detect a collision with an existing '2462-bis DAD' node, since the former will only check the Link Local and the latter might not be defending that. (I'm thinking here of nodes which use RFC3041-like random or SEND-CGA-like hash generated addresses) -----Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
