Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:44:08 +1100, 
>>>>> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[e-mail]> said:

> NB:  Is there a plan for 3041bis?  It's rather bound up with
> DIID too.

A quick response.  I guess you are talking about the following part of
RFC3041:

      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 document
      recommends that DAD be run on the first address generated from a
      given randomized identifier, but that DAD be skipped on all
      subsequent addresses generated from the same randomized interface
      identifier.
(the last paragraph of Section 3.3)

However, RFC3041 actually has a successor,
draft-ietf-ipngwg-temp-addresses-v2-00.txt (expired for a long period
though),  which reversed the logic:

      Note: although multiple temporary addresses are generated from the
      same associated randomized interface identifier, DAD should still
      be run on every temporary address. Otherwise, it is possible that
      two nodes will select the same interface identifier but not detect
      the collision if they run DAD on addresses generated from
      different prefixes.
(the last paragraph of Section 3.3)

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[e-mail]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------