Subject: RE: Discussion Summary and Next Steps (was RE: [netlmm] Link LocalAddressing Semantics)

From: "Mohamed Khalil" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 11:33:42 -0600

1. Do you agree, when the MN-AR link is a p2p link and
 if the mobile is not DNAv6-draft capable, there is no
 issue of link-local address collision of the mobile with
 the AR on the access link ?

If the MN makes handoff from one AR to a new serving AR it has to
reestablish L2 & L3 connectivity with the new AR. If the DaD kicks of
(which I am not sure about if this happens in pure IPv6), so this is not
an issue. but if DaD is not kicking off, so we have an issue. 

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm

---

From: Sri Gundavelli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:46:23 -0800 (PST)

> an issue. but if DaD is not kicking off, so we have an issue.

Thanks Mohamed. A normal IPv6 host will trigger the DAD procedure,
when ever the link comes up. Looks like, DNAv6 modifies this
behaviour. I've sent a request to the authors of DNAv6 to clarify the
IPv6 host behaviour on P2P links. If we can safely assume that
the host will trigger DAD procedure on P2P, when ever the link
comes up, all of this discussion is mute and we can close this
thread on the link-local address collision issues on the MN-AR
p2p link and move forward. If not, we need to decide if we need to
bother about DNAv6 or not.

Thanks
Sri