> Putting that aside, a SEND node could well *defend* the address > fe80::A for DAD/DIID purposes, but it would never actually use it. >
I think that's the issue. Should a SEND or 3041 node be required to defend LL addresses that use suffixes configured for their global unicast addresses even though they will never use the LL addresses? Since it's a backward compatibility issue, I think it would depend on how widely implemented DIID is. If it's not widely implemented, then there's no point in doing it. My personal feeling is that it is an extra bit of signaling that is unnecessary unless there is a widely deployed IPv6 capable OS out there that does DIID. In any event, the SEND spec doesn't need to change, because this behavior would have to be specified in RFC 2462bis since it would apply to 3041 nodes too or for that matter any node that used a different algorithm for configuring its suffix. jak -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------