Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies

[Greg Daley <greg.daley at eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Sharkey,

Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote:
> On 2004-02-27, Greg Daley wrote:
>
> > Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote:
> >
> > >  - When configuring a global unicast address, the link-local
> > >    address with the same suffix as that address MUST be configured
> > >    and tested for uniqueness in order to maintain interoperability
> > >    with RFC2462 behaviour.
> > I think that configuring additional addresses which
> > don't match the prefix used to generate the suffix in
> > the CGA is going to cause problems.
>
> Good point.  However, the MN registering A::X only needs to
> defend the LL::X against DIID-compatible nodes.
> I think we can assume that SEND-CGA nodes will follow the
> _new_ DAD standard. So the unsecured defensive NA should be okay,
> since it won't be needed against SEND-CGA nodes.
>
> ... I think.  Any SENDites want to comment?
I'm not really a SENDite, but...

> NB:  Is there a plan for 3041bis?  It's rather bound up with
> DIID too.
I think that you're right about this (! missed that)
since the SEND devices will have distinct IIDs for each
prefix anyway, DIID isn't useful for them.

It doesn't mean I like your solution... :)

Greg


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