IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: DAD question

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 14 August 2012 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 C4A1121F867D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.383
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 y7hZ0r8CMbo3 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:03:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47BC721F8669 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2:3a60:77ff:fe38:e647]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 843A920182 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:16:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "ipv6@ietf.org 6man" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: DAD question
In-Reply-To: <AC13E895-93A9-4289-B416-2A273A3F0C34@cisco.com>
References: <201208141141.q7EBfiIe099885@givry.fdupont.fr> <AC13E895-93A9-4289-B416-2A273A3F0C34@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.5; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22)
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:02:47 -0400
Message-ID: <30899.1344963767@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:03:01 -0000

>>>>> "fred" == fred  <Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>> writes:
    fred> I've said before that I find the fixation an MAC addresses
    fred> strange; not all devices have MAC addresses in the first
    fred> place, and having built an EID from a MAC address, there is no

But, enough devices have them that it's just not a concern. 
The devices that don't tend not to do any kind of SLAAC.

    fred> So the MAC address is at most a seed for building an EID, one
    fred> of many, and to my small mind if it doesn't result in a unique
    fred> one, the obvious recovery action is to pick another by a
    fred> different algorithm.

    fred> I gather nobody agrees with me.

I think that we agree with you.  I think that most implementations of
SLAAC were done prior to there being any other choice, and simply
haven't been updated to do something different if DAD fails.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email