Re: New Version Notification for draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-05.txt

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Mon, 03 March 2014 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7342B1A00F9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:02:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.935
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jPW3EbSsOZuM for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from c.mail.sonic.net (c.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE291A004A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [31.133.180.98] (dhcp-b462.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.180.98]) (authenticated bits=0) by c.mail.sonic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s23F1uYT014069 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:01:58 -0800
Message-ID: <53149963.10900@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:01:55 +0000
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-05.txt
References: <20140214235734.2509.63069.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52FF115C.30001@acm.org> <CAJE_bqdOiO2zyCvxsO4sEW+9ZMb0DoOyscNWP1=jedrBbbBkEA@mail.gmail.com> <530FA94B.3050802@acm.org> <CAJE_bqdF2-nH7GaC+j6PnRagDC0jDj0c0me6MOC6AsHNvDaedQ@mail.gmail.com> <5311DA0F.5070106@sonic.net> <CAJE_bqe+db_ojg_3hMkHOo2LCK7cuWmjMa=RgzF5UnWo2q7znQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqe+db_ojg_3hMkHOo2LCK7cuWmjMa=RgzF5UnWo2q7znQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Sonic-ID: C;2N8Xw+Si4xGkMrRWCY+HFQ== M;rNurw+Si4xGkMrRWCY+HFQ==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/mmumuYuLQBXGNuUH8KyYDxklmeo
Cc: IETF IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:02:05 -0000

On 3/2/14 4:40 PM, 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Sat, 01 Mar 2014 14:01:03 +0100,
> Erik Nordmark <nordmark@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> To have a unicast RA prior to having registered the link-local address,
>> the router needs to use the SLLA option in the RS - this would be the
>> same mechanism as in the draft for sending errors to NS/AROs.
> What if the link-local address is a duplicate and that's because the
> link-layer address is a duplicate?  If the unicast RA is supposed to
> include an ARO whose status field is 1 and be sent to the (duplicate)
> link-local address, it's not guaranteed the RA is delivered to the
> node that sent the RS.
We can not detect and handle duplicate MAC addresses using DAD in general.

Even back when we first defined DAD we knew it could handle MAC address 
duplicates for Ethernet (assuming certain device driver behavior), but 
probably not on FDDI and Token Ring (due to how the ring maintenance 
worked).

More recent work like dad-proxy assumes that the MAC addresses  are not 
duplicate, and the loopback case needs special care even when MAC 
addresses are unique.

Using explicit registrations doesn't really change that. The 
registration needs some unique id (be it an EUI-64 or DCHP DUID) that is 
unique to tell apart a duplicate and a registration refresh. If your MAC 
address is not unique then your EUI-64 (or MAC address based DUID) is 
likely to also not be unique.

    Erik