> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 07:25:37 -0800,
> "Richard Draves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > You do not generate link-local addresses for the new IIDs. And not
>> > site-local either. Just global addresses.
>>
>> Why not for site-local addresses?
> There's no technical reason you couldn't g
On Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 05:14:41PM +0200, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> I'm trying to understand what the following text means and
> implies in Section 3.3 of RFC 3041:
>
> "Note: because multiple temporary addresses are generated from the
>same associated randomized interface identifier, there is
> > You do not generate link-local addresses for the new IIDs. And not
> > site-local either. Just global addresses.
>
> Why not for site-local addresses?
There's no technical reason you couldn't generate temporary link-local
or site-local addresses. We felt that within a link/site, privacy is n
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:34:41 -0800,
> "Richard Draves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Also, it wasn't clear to me whether link-local addresses are
>> generated for every new IID or not. If they are, RFC 2462
>> rules in Section 5.4 apply and the collision problem may be
>> solved that
> I'm trying to understand what the following text means and
> implies in Section 3.3 of RFC 3041:
>
>"Note: because multiple temporary addresses are generated from the
> same associated randomized interface identifier, there is little
> benefit in running DAD on every temporary addre
Hi,
I'm trying to understand what the following text means and
implies in Section 3.3 of RFC 3041:
"Note: because multiple temporary addresses are generated from the
same associated randomized interface identifier, there is little
benefit in running DAD on every temporary address. This
