[6bone] Re: DAD scope ??

[Siva Veerepalli]

True, that is recommended as the default value. However, if a PPP link is 
to support the privacy extensions RFC3041, wouldn't the node have to 
perform DAD when generating an address using an interface ID different from 
the one negotiated during IPv6CP? Of course, if one node on the PPP link 
does not support RFC3046 (i.e., does not generate additional interface 
IDs), then DAD could still be avoided.

Regards,
Siva

At 01:35 PM 1/6/2003 -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
>Each ipv6-over-foo doc discusses modifications to ND,
>if necessary, for the particular link technology.  For
>example, Section 5 of RFC 2023 (IPv6 over PPP) mentions
>that DAD is redundant and needn't be run.
>
>Regards,
>Brian
>
>Fred L. Templin wrote:
>>Margaret/others,
>>Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>
>>>DAD is a link-local mechanism (uses link-local multicast
>>>packets).  So, while it checks all addresses, it only
>>>explicitly checks for duplicate addresses on the local link.
>>
>>What about DAD for links that are unicast-only? Alternatives
>>I can imagine are:
>>  1. specify some sort of unicast mechanism for DAD
>>  2. perform some sort of multicast emulation (e.g., MARS)
>>  3. avoid DAD alltogether when one can assume that addresses
>>     are uniquely assigned within the site
>>Thoughts?
>>Fred Templin
>>ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
>>IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
>>FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
>>Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>6bone mailing list
>6bone@mailman.isi.edu
>http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/6bone