On 2004-02-27, Greg Daley wrote: > Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote: > > > > - When configuring a global unicast address, the link-local > > address with the same suffix as that address MUST be configured > > and tested for uniqueness in order to maintain interoperability > > with RFC2462 behaviour. > > I think that configuring additional addresses which > don't match the prefix used to generate the suffix in > the CGA is going to cause problems.
Good point. However, the MN registering A::X only needs to defend the LL::X against DIID-compatible nodes. I think we can assume that SEND-CGA nodes will follow the _new_ DAD standard. So the unsecured defensive NA should be okay, since it won't be needed against SEND-CGA nodes. ... I think. Any SENDites want to comment? NB: Is there a plan for 3041bis? It's rather bound up with DIID too. cheers, -----Nick -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
