Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies

[JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L at C#:H(B <jinmei at isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>]

>>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 23:15:08 +1100, 
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <sharkey@zoic.org> said:

>> Sorry, I don't understand the concern...by which scenario might the
>> latter not be defending the link-local address?  (perhaps I don't
>> understand what you meant by "defend"...)

> Sorry, that's me being obscure:  By 'defend' I mean 'send an NA in
> response to an NS for that address from the unspecified address',
> eg: to 'defend' that address as being yours.

> The scenario being that under non-IID based allocations such as
> RFC3041 or SEND-CGA, a node offered prefixes A, B and C may
> configure different suffixes X, Y and Z ... thus the addresses
> A::X, B::Y, C::Z.

> This breaks the old assumption that all allocated addresses (on
> a given interface) will have the same suffix.  In order to 
> defend the address C::Z from 'old-style DIID' nodes, the new-style
> node would have to reply to NSs for LINKLOCAL::Z too.

> I'm not sure that's explicitly explained in the text (maybe I've
> just missed it?)

> cheers, hope that clarifies things?

Honestly, I was not 100% sure about the point when I first saw the
message.  But I think I now understand it by the succeeding messages
in this thread.

Thanks for the elaboration.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------