- 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?
Thanks for bringing this issue up. Actually, it seems that if we want SEND nodes to be compatible with DIID-only plain ND nodes, there is indeed a need to defend the link-local address. Doing so is possible, although in my opinion its a bit awkward:
- SEND specification has to be amended with a new rule. - SEND nodes have to send plain ND messages (they are unable to secure the LL::X probe because X depends on prefix, and we are not really trying to create the address LL::X but rather A::X). Nevertheless, sending plain ND messages is possible. - The amount of messages for DAD is duplicated.
So I guess what I'm asking is whether we really need to do this. Did someone make a poll earlier about how many DIID-only implementations there are? What where the results, are we likely to encounter DIID-only hosts? Or perhaps SEND needs to do defend LL::X only when running in ND-compliant mode?
--Jari
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
