IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DAD question

Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> Sun, 12 August 2012 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <kauer@biplane.com.au>
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 E30EB21F8611 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6]
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 hheS98EByNel for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D318E21F861F for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBABMbKFCWZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANN4YBtyEBAQEEI2YLGAICJgICSQENGatTbpF9gSGNBoIKgRIDoFiHdA
Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.200]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2012 06:42:46 +0930
Message-ID: <1344805961.6453.34.camel@karl>
Subject: Re: DAD question
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:12:41 +1000
In-Reply-To: <qe4xlinfv6dk9k6n2xqfefjp.1344637931803@email.android.com>
References: <36AA0AF8-95FD-4751-AE2E-A7A3D07038EB@cisco.com> , <C34ADAF7-8125-4176-AC52-21BD5BCD07A2@puck.nether.net> <qe4xlinfv6dk9k6n2xqfefjp.1344637931803@email.android.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
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: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:12:51 -0000

On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 22:32 +0000, Duncan, Richard (Jeremy) wrote:
> That's not the case at all.  In testing I have done on Unix, Linux and
> Windows systems they all do (1).  5.4.5. When Duplicate Address
> Detection Fails
> A tentative address that is determined to be a duplicate as described above MUST NOT be assigned to an interface, and the node SHOULD log a system management error.

My experience with Linux is that a duplicate LLA resukts in a down
interface, a duplicate GUA results in a permanently-tentative enabled
interface.

Regards, K.
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://www.biplane.com.au/blog

GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017
Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email