IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DAD question

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 11 August 2012 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
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 F15E411E80A3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V7iBfd+oUEAJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6E111E8087 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [186.134.19.36] (helo=[192.168.123.104]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1T0JcK-00014F-B1; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:53:13 +0200
Message-ID: <5026D409.5010001@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:52:09 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
Subject: Re: DAD question
References: <36AA0AF8-95FD-4751-AE2E-A7A3D07038EB@cisco.com> <409F28A1-7974-4524-893D-CEF349A96657@employees.org> <5FAE0128-DDE7-45C4-8632-F56EAA1BE362@gmail.com> <20120811.180104.41668882.sthaug@nethelp.no> <1344721144.6453.29.camel@karl>
In-Reply-To: <1344721144.6453.29.camel@karl>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5a1pre
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 11 Aug 2012 21:53:21 -0000

On 08/11/2012 06:39 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> If the duplicates ARE on the same link, then you have
> a real problem at layer 2 anyway. 

It sucks -- e.g., performance-wise.

However, if the layer above 2 employs addressing (e.g. IPv4 and IPv6),
things should still work even in the presence of *this* problem.

Traditional SLAAC addresses deriving the IPv6 address from the (now
non-unique) MAC address introduces a different problem.

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email