Re: DAD question

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> Sat, 11 August 2012 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bob.hinden@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 55D5421F8585 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:36:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 GlOj4tsn90Wf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CE621F84A1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so641073eaa.31 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=tFcmLf4FN0KPDnSgcjkQCa3jiD1tyn4M5NNFylTXzuo=; b=n5adpbzLH7C22vfMIqbOhMWAC/7PpJhEWTZ4zQshe5GaGPGO047P5+QEC81A0dMwl4 JgOdgYnRok24YF2h1oQ07RcXCXcJY0faioS87As8zg1Udqj0TuqGnV2rHVf4424q3DtW x6pihwJKCcknYnpIEuZwMGzVQHVujMxNnNF1i3u7eV8N+0qoruIjUX73R/7PcoMx7kA5 E8K9AxfGtl0ZKkoEn22gnoHz9lotGN+YCoumzCg1nLqJyUJf/DGSDbqijW/cvkTy81L+ zFCfkESKPqiHiDva1+5g13ESHCN05iHKJ/UKBKM+i3WA42HfCqp1SxK9+9wPEAMKsF8f c+XQ==
Received: by 10.14.220.70 with SMTP id n46mr2838079eep.42.1344699367695; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:36:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:9:4080:10:b53b:99a1:3efd:8902? ([2601:9:4080:10:b53b:99a1:3efd:8902]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u8sm5113134eel.11.2012.08.11.08.36.04 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: DAD question
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1280)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <409F28A1-7974-4524-893D-CEF349A96657@employees.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 08:36:00 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5FAE0128-DDE7-45C4-8632-F56EAA1BE362@gmail.com>
References: <36AA0AF8-95FD-4751-AE2E-A7A3D07038EB@cisco.com> <409F28A1-7974-4524-893D-CEF349A96657@employees.org>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1280)
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
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 15:36:09 -0000

Ole,

On Aug 11, 2012, at 1:33 AM, Ole Trøan wrote:

> Fred,
> 
>> 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.

True, but the odds of this happening are very low.  I wonder if we have any data on DAD detecting duplicate addresses and their cause.

For example, has any seen any actual duplicate MAC addresses?  It would be good to collect some data.

Bob

> 
> cheers,
> Ole--------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------