Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Issue #23 and Issue #30

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 17:29:45 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   > RFC3041 says that a node can generate a new iid
   > and does DAD for _that_ address which uses the
   > new iid. Since this is typically not a link local
   > address, you could get a conflict if the HA
   > does not defend all addresses.
   
   The problem is that RFC 3041 should require any
   such node to first acquire rights to the link-local
   address.  I hope that is viewed as an omission, and
   one which can be quickly repaired.
   
=> this point is clearly at the advantage of the DIIDD option
but don't forget a direct consequence of to choose DIIDD is the MN
returning back to home should use an alternative IID (a RFC 3041 one
for instance) because its `own' IDD is defended by the HA until
the deregistration succeeds: this is clean, easy to implement/understand
but costs a DAD (oups, a DIIDD :-) for the temporary IID check in all cases...

Regards

[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------