> From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> basically, you seem to argue for DIID (against) DAD. Though I agree > that DIID vs DAD is somewhat controversial and there is surely a > tradeoff between those two, I believe the wg consensus was we should > honor DAD rather than DIID (as Francis showed some pointers). And, I > don't see the need for revisiting the discussion. Yes, DIID probably (or something similar). I believe that simplest solution is that a specific ID value can be allowed only for single node on the link. Any use of same ID part with any prefix by another node should be viewed as an address collision. I've expressed this opinion years ago, on this list and elsewhere. So assumed my "vote" would have already been noted. But, I guess one needs to repeat opinion at least once per week, to be noted. It is very frustrating to see incorrect (IMHO) decisions being made by "consensus". -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
