On Wed, October 16, 2013 8:29 pm, Ole Troan wrote:
> correct. see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#section-4.3.
> "Target address".
Of course! Despite seeing that several times I was (mis)interpreting
'target address' as 'destination address'!
Thank you for setting me straight.
Mathew
Hi Ole,
On Wed, October 16, 2013 8:22 pm, Ole Troan wrote:
> no, it will only reply if it has that exact address. otherwise it will
> drop that packet.
Aha. So the tentative address is actually included within the message?
Mathew
Mathew,
> Specifically, it is my undertanding that when an node has a tentative
> address it wishes to use it sends a neighbour solicitation to the
> solicited-node multicast address which is computed using the last 24 bits
> of that tentative address. If another node is already listening on that
Mathew,
>> no, it will only reply if it has that exact address. otherwise it will
>> drop that packet.
>
> Aha. So the tentative address is actually included within the message?
correct. see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4861#section-4.3.
"Target address".
cheers,
Ole
signature.asc
Descripti
Oops..
On Wed, October 16, 2013 8:11 pm, Mathew Newton wrote:
> To me, that therefore means that the effective number of discrete
> addresses on a link can only ever be a maximum of 2^24 (65,536). Is that
> correct?
I do of course mean 16,777,216 but my (theoretical) point and query still
stands
Hopefully the group won't misconstrue the subject line as being a plea for
domestic assistance!
I am trying to understand the nuances of how DAD operates, and in
particular the consequences of how it appears to work (to me at least).
Specifically, it is my undertanding that when an node has a ten
