IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DAD question

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Sat, 11 August 2012 19:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ichiroumakino@gmail.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 DBDEC21F862A for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 wcPgyEZXcWbQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:04:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0106521F8620 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so660593eek.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=dJxVfrXsgCDE8f3Hc3uAk5qww46JFIVDi4JP8kY7/gc=; b=iBG6bbwlzZtVoDAybIQEBxTR+jXjKajeJZNKtEMBxGnz27pZcevpcLZ3lxuWNIHGWL PEdLGa5yw4nVR72CVdfoSFXBMlKHoK4eiN42PCDhuX1+BcnqSQRNHbpKzwFRD1/HaUlU cmQ5lKhOn94WPFfF6KWthn1n7RJzY2V+FAbVr8h7pt8JhZUk61bPJkqigatPX6pPZYWX +lEQiHLvlouqF/HbGrjiPJU9ioF/DgI+NCO05XU58PsOm1XB7db3p94YT6NB7vH8KWCL +/FqArOmyJYTQ1y+a4pkc+f9K+pqQHP651JHks5Jw8ZHz6vHjqjRZ9kLdVPz0Kon+g9h j2OA==
Received: by 10.14.207.9 with SMTP id m9mr7968875eeo.5.1344711853147; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:04:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2a02:fe0:cf15:30:94f:939c:b36b:aea3? ([2a02:fe0:cf15:30:94f:939c:b36b:aea3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 45sm6106635eeb.8.2012.08.11.12.04.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 12:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DAD question
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E424D2D9-BED3-436D-A8C4-379C2DD7777A"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <E02F7231-EB0D-433B-B79F-5064803F18F1@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 21:04:10 +0200
Message-Id: <91A5DDF6-B956-492F-A430-E1A3DF34B67D@employees.org>
References: <36AA0AF8-95FD-4751-AE2E-A7A3D07038EB@cisco.com> <409F28A1-7974-4524-893D-CEF349A96657@employees.org> <E02F7231-EB0D-433B-B79F-5064803F18F1@cisco.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man" <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 19:04:15 -0000

>>> Call this "making sure I'm on the same page as anyone else"…
>>> 
>>> RFC 4941 describes privacy addresses, and RFC 4291 describes an EID based on a MAC Address. RFC 4862 describes stateless address autoconfiguration, and uses RFC 4861's duplicate address detection mechanism.
>>> 
>>> My question is: what happens if any of them discovers that it has created an address that is already in use in the network?
>>> 
>>> There would appear to be two options: 
>>> (1) "ah, OK, I guess I didn't really want to talk today"
>>> (2) Following RFC 4941, guess again until one creates a unique address
>>> 
>>> Is it fair to assume that implementations do DAD and follow (2)?
>> 
>> implementations I'm familiar with do 1.
>> it may be a fair assumption that if an address based on the MAC address is duplicate, the MAC address itself is a duplicate.
> 
> And that relates to privacy addresses how?

it doesn't. is your question how DAD is done for privacy addresses?

then section 3.3 of RFC4941 is quite clear on that.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email