IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DAD question

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Sat, 11 August 2012 18:57 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.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 782F321F84EF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.164
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 RQIc3pLuGqfW for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95AD121F84E7 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 11:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; l=988; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344711461; x=1345921061; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=YNFOAZEd1H642w1FvyM4qMmtv+buGIzMsmym2jzN77E=; b=TBkH+/VDYnQe1JwuECShSNCPPMmYr0BFhDTPTciYUoqPlxwrrKDRaNLo 2hJSbGSO11M7KVv1z+XvKrDr0VdaXQDgs1gyO9fg8SwqIr0YZY7Mlw2Da iV0qLzEDkDTo5iwr/B25+PnBVpXQZz7cZ/+MMVx9esSm6N1umDWz6xS1K Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAPupJlCtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABEuXqBB4IgAQEBAwESAWYFCwIBCEYyJQIEDieHZQaYZJ9lixKFUWADlUuOKoFmgl8
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,751,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="110646944"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Aug 2012 18:57:41 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com [173.36.12.83]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7BIvfX7013501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:57:41 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.97]) by xhc-aln-x09.cisco.com ([173.36.12.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:57:41 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Subject: Re: DAD question
Thread-Topic: DAD question
Thread-Index: AQHNd0XlCeAhXXPBcEK2v5tAiE4SZZdUnVeAgACuSoA=
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 18:57:40 +0000
Message-ID: <E02F7231-EB0D-433B-B79F-5064803F18F1@cisco.com>
References: <36AA0AF8-95FD-4751-AE2E-A7A3D07038EB@cisco.com> <409F28A1-7974-4524-893D-CEF349A96657@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <409F28A1-7974-4524-893D-CEF349A96657@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.32.244.220]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19104.001
x-tm-as-result: No--34.728800-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <93222E3C199EF5448C6C2BEAE9CC75F7@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 18:57:42 -0000

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.

And that relates to privacy addresses how?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email