>>>>> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:53:37 +0900, >>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Another point. Any reason why autoconfiguration with DAD is not possible even if N >> is > 118? Maybe this was already discussed. > I'm not really sure about the point....first, this is only related to > link-local addresses. Secondly, the discussion here is irrelevant to > DAD. Hmm, perhaps your point is something like this: if N is > 118, simply use the rightmost 118bits of the interface identifier following the link-local prefix fe80::/10. If the shortened interface identifier collides with others, DAD will detect it as a duplicate of the entire address. If DAD completes successfully, we can simply use the address with the shortened IFID. I don't know if this was discussed in the past, but I'd first like to point out that this (= shortening the long IFID) can be regarded as a kind of "manual configuration": If the interface identifier is more than 118 bits in length, autoconfiguration fails and manual configuration is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ required. (from RFC2462, but rfc2462bis will have a similar sentence) So, there is nothing that (at least explicitly) prohibits this operation in RFC2462 or in rfc2462bis. (I would personally not use this type of "semi-auto" manual configuration in this case though). JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------