IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DAD question

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 11 August 2012 17:18 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 7630021F84EC for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 qXYvX2GRmCVK for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E992021F8484 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [186.134.19.36] (helo=[192.168.123.104]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1T0FJs-0002Gg-Mi; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 19:17:54 +0200
Message-ID: <50269379.3010100@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 14:16:41 -0300
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120714 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: DAD question
References: <36AA0AF8-95FD-4751-AE2E-A7A3D07038EB@cisco.com> <409F28A1-7974-4524-893D-CEF349A96657@employees.org> <5FAE0128-DDE7-45C4-8632-F56EAA1BE362@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5FAE0128-DDE7-45C4-8632-F56EAA1BE362@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5a1pre
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>, "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 17:18:06 -0000

Hi, Bob,

On 08/11/2012 12:36 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>> 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.

Virtual machines?

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email