Subject: RE: IPV6CP - RFC Compliance 2472

From: "Subramonia Pillai - CTD, Chennai" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:30:46 +0530

Hi,

One of reason behind exchanging Interface Identifier as part of IPV6CP, is
to make sure its uniqueness in both ends. Link-local address is generated
from the Interface Identifier. 

If there is a clash, there is a chance both ends with use same address as
link-local address? How we can avoid this?

Thanks
Subu 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 1:20 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPV6CP - RFC Compliance 2472

> Hi,
> 
> According to RFC, Interface Identifier being used to not only for the
> Link-local address, EUI-64 global unicast address is derived from that.
> 
> Based on your input, 
> 1. How one end will come to know the other end address (both link-local
and
> global unicast address)?

	normally routers learn their peer's link-local address via routing
	protocol.  there's no need to know global address.

> 2. Will unicast routing protocol will advertise that address? or some
other
> protocol?

	they will advertise link-local address (in the case of RIPng).

> 3. Can you please tell me, what is being followed by the industry in this
> scenario ?

	what is "this scenario"?

itojun

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

---

From: Ole Troan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:00:41 +0100

> link-local address? How we can avoid this?

for the record, I do think it is useful to negotiate the interface
identifier. in the case where you cannot, just use DAD to ensure
uniqueness.

/ot