IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Sat, 15 July 2017 21:43 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C46CA12EA74 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8lxiIzQmjTyK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from accordion.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B557D12EA52 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.201] (77.16.64.96.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.16.64.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by accordion.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 52CF52D4FF9; Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:43:20 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: IPv6 Routing & ND vs. Addressing, (Was: Re: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-09.txt>)
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (14G57)
In-Reply-To: <596A8A52.9030108@foobar.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 23:43:15 +0200
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FCEE7BF1-A276-4243-B9CC-FE2BDE25183C@employees.org>
References: <CAN-Dau2zgthR2w9e5ZVUdGc-vm+YvK2uTUJ8O=vrcv0jNc58RA@mail.gmail.com> <ff09ffcd-df65-4033-8018-fbe7ae98cff8@gmail.com> <6bf7f3d0e9c047b1b86d4bcc220f8705@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAN-Dau1bxm5y0v_6kUBc_ym39bSSxepjdwrzcS7YHWD=CV9-bw@mail.gmail.com> <3b34d6e9718a45ae80877e36fb55f2b4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x+282VK7nMFHjcCz9tBmJ_=d4OhkiRZFZDLcZhakGB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <30cb27b2-007a-2a39-803d-271297862cae@gmail.com> <40d757eb97564bc8bb0511063bd9d3f4@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAO42Z2x7ER2fUietjT3Ns-jpCqscCmVDVubiM0Dgw1_L0bkw=A@mail.gmail.com> <c7b140bf69104cd3877a7da03fbf17e7@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <32924d19-e5ce-7606-77f4-925b682065f5@gmail.com> <745583ab45bb407a9a210020a96773c5@XCH15-06-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <m1dVbRc-0000GQC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <b6da9e67-1f4e-8900-5a3b-575d0c6fd2fd@gmail.com> <m1dWNIL-0000FpC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <3d2f1182-ec 19-959e-a63f-ad0d316bbacf@gmail.com> <BBC09C3B-BBA7-4B40-A44C-D6D7FB306314@employees.org> <596A8A5 2.9030108@foobar.org>
To: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/44IZX5KWmxStrqhJLDIO28K4P_M>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 21:43:23 -0000

Nick,

This a protocol problem. DAD is built with the assumption that physical links are reliable. 20% packet loss for multicast is common on wifi...

Cheers 
Ole

> On 15 Jul 2017, at 23:34, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> 
> Ole Troan wrote:
>> DAD is not robust. Last time I tried on the IETF wireless network 1
>> time in 4 DAD failed to detect a duplicate.
> 
> was this an implementation problem or a protocol problem?
> 
> Nick

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email