IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might cause address conflicts?

Markus Hanauska <hanauska@equinux.de> Wed, 16 March 2011 10:50 UTC

Return-Path: <hanauska@equinux.de>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1B73A6951 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.444
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id V+Lm08oL-k9L for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.equinux.net (mail.equinux.net [194.145.236.10]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 122DB3A6952 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.equinux.net (127.0.0.1) by mail.equinux.net (MlfMTA v3.2r9) id hg228u0171sc for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:36:15 +0100 (envelope-from <hanauska@equinux.de>)
Received: from mail.muc.equinux.net ([192.168.40.207]) by mail.equinux.net (equinux Secure Mail Relay) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:36:15 +0100
Received: from anaheim.muc.equinux.net (anaheim.muc.equinux.net [192.168.40.40]) by mail.muc.equinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 00F7520F95AC; Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:51:59 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might cause address conflicts?
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Markus Hanauska <hanauska@equinux.de>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103161143220.87087@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 11:51:58 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <A0F71DA0-7295-4EF7-B577-313FA1EC9C58@equinux.de>
References: <C744C51B-F2B0-4137-B39F-54B8D62F1C97@equinux.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103160951100.87087@mignon.ki.iif.hu> <3833B29B-1475-4BD7-B94D-7BD70AE4CB3B@equinux.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103161143220.87087@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
To: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
X-Mlf-Version: 7.2.1.2841
X-Mlf-UniqueId: o201103160936150094752
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:50:34 -0000

On 2011-03-16, at 11:45 , Mohacsi Janos wrote:

> The servers are "always" working. Newcomers cannot hijack their addresses since DAD will fail for them....


Maybe on your network, but on our network some servers are only working at certain office times or when they are needed. Some "servers" are no servers in the classical sense, they are servers by "software" (they offer a certain service via a well know protocol at a well known port), not by "hardware" (they might not even be computers in the classical sense).

Best regards,
Markus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email