Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might causeaddress conflicts?

Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu> Mon, 21 March 2011 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E40DE28C14F for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:17:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gQZyVqKSwSe9 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod5og113.obsmtp.com (exprod5og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.0.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 77A873A6881 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([132.177.123.84]) by exprod5ob113.postini.com ([64.18.4.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTYdsVCixw1dRNg1e5HjhmiFbWrnlmyDZ@postini.com; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 08:19:16 PDT
Received: from optimus.iol.unh.edu (optimus.iol.unh.edu [132.177.118.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by postal.iol.unh.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 15FB521F056; Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:18:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might causeaddress conflicts?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-290977250
From: Timothy Winters <twinters@iol.unh.edu>
In-Reply-To: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3010D2B39@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:18:44 -0400
Message-Id: <6D0CE79E-9651-45A9-B094-057D5ED6EFCE@iol.unh.edu>
References: <C744C51B-F2B0-4137-B39F-54B8D62F1C97@equinux.de> <E7CFEDBC-5048-413E-93C9-DBF79B4FC238@apple.com> <E8CD61BF-827E-4A83-AA63-275D0CCB0B53@equinux.de><35A891E0-9BA1-4694-AFA3-C6C46C8F3625@apple.com> <4D7FEE26.9060502@gmail.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3010D2B1F@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4D868457.5060504@gmail.com> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3010D2B39@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 15:17:45 -0000

Hello,
	The UNH-IOL has made a white paper from the event available on the IPv6 homepage.  As Hemant stated there were issues discovered around DAD and the need for it.

Regards,
Tim

On Mar 20, 2011, at 7:09 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:49 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: james woodyatt; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might causeaddress conflicts?
> 
> 
>> Good idea, where's the wiki?
> 
> Ah, none that I know of.  Also, I am only catching up to 6man email this weekend being busy in the week with v6ops emails.  If a wiki does not exist for such issues, we could start one.  Since our cable IPv6 home devices such as cable modems and IPv6 CE Routers (standalone or combined inside a modem) are assumed to provide no console, we have specified use of a DAD Proxy at the first-hop IPv6 router.  This first-hop router is also the access concentrator (a CMTS - Cable Modem Termination System) for cable broadband.  Note since the cable network is an end-to-end IP network, it is easier for cable to specify support for DAD Proxy at the CMTS.  DSL which is not end-to-end at the IP layer has more issues to deal with.  The reason is that a SP has console access to the CMTS and if the CMTS supports a DAD Proxy, the SP at least knows which home the failure has occurred in and take some action.  Without the CMTS supporting DAD proxy, the DAD failure for a modem or CE festers for an
>  error with the modem or CE dead in the water.   Of course, the home customer would call the SP in such a situation but it's better for the SP to be proactive to catch the error before any home user calls.  
> 
> It's also interesting that even when the SP has detected a DAD Duplicate, what does the SP do besides shutting down one of the two nodes that clashed for the same IPv6 link-local address.  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Hemant
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------