Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01 (was: Re: Consensus call on adopting:....)

Karl Auer <> Sat, 14 April 2012 06:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC29321F86EA for <>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YpcmB-y5yRH6 for <>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:4]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C692C21F86CF for <>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:48:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAJociU+WZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANOIVmsjMBAQEDASNbCwsYIwcCAlcZiAmmNpJbjiWCDIEYBKEoh3OBQhU
Received: from (HELO []) ([]) by with ESMTP; 14 Apr 2012 16:18:44 +0930
Subject: Re: Feedback on draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01 (was: Re: Consensus call on adopting:....)
From: Karl Auer <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <1334276068.3945.408.camel@karl> <> <1334363774.3945.541.camel@karl> <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-krzFednaOPkJO+gh9I6g"
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:48:40 +1000
Message-ID: <1334386120.3945.607.camel@karl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:48:48 -0000

On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 14:24 +0800, Washam Fan wrote:
> So what is the next step if the autoconfiguration fails? static
> configure? If yes. Will the next reboot try autoconfiguration again?
> If yes, you may have non-stable addresses within the same network. If
> no, when you move to another network you should explicitly revoke the
> static configuration and enable autoconfiguration again.

If autoconfiguration fails, then it fails. There is no automated
fallback; the host stays address-less (or at least
stable-address-less :-) until the situation is resolved by external

How the conflict should be resolved is out of the scope of the draft.

> I think the author should clarify this DAD failure issue in the next
> version.

Yes in any case. But I don't think it has to be more complicated than
"if Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) detects an address conflict, the
host MUST NOT use the address." Maybe also add "A host MAY continue to
attempt DAD in the hope that the address conflict is resolved; in this
case additional DAD attempts should be infrequent." The latter allows an
unattended host to recover without assistance.

Regards, K.

Karl Auer (

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