Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <> Sun, 15 November 2015 00:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE051B2E8C for <>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:28:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1d2bNGb79eGL for <>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:28:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C20231B2E8B for <>; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 16:28:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1711; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447547300; x=1448756900; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=p5Hdjs7vTfykBqKn26WXyLuEXXLyyVaFpdLjFIU4Ra0=; b=YtNK/klYV+R5kxpzZL1jsmCVqFZD8LPI586/HUNO4st+vD/UvW71PhFc CDSJOaP0VCk+SOemOZs6EqIvk0ZQs04DAXAWvLhyMdEOlWjRF02BcYYi9 Xwl4uFXhujdvMfz0Wb+uuc+5wJhZj+ha0SakVVa247/r5hjv9K/2itxMc c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ACAgB00EdW/5pdJa1egzuBQga+RQENg?= =?us-ascii?q?WSGEAKBJzgUAQEBAQEBAYEKhDQBAQEEOj8MBAIBCBEEAQEBHgkHMhQJCAIEDgU?= =?us-ascii?q?IiCa2bQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARiLUok5BZJng2EBjR+BYpZ4g3EBH?= =?us-ascii?q?wEBQoQEcoREgQcBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,295,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="44903635"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2015 00:28:19 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tAF0SJ84014501 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:28:19 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:28:18 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:28:18 -0500
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <>
To: Gert Doering <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:28:18 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <20151114181240.GI89490@Space.Net> <> <20151114185052.GM89490@Space.Net> <> <20151114192740.GN89490@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20151114192740.GN89490@Space.Net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 00:28:22 -0000



-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [] 
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2015 2:28 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Gert Doering;
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]


On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 07:14:28PM +0000, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> I will be out for next few hours.  I will reply to any mails after that.   I don't have any issue to disable DAD for  a lo interface.  Jinmei wants due diligence because rfc4862 is being changed and the 6man WG has to take a look.  The draft is not just a v6ops issue any more.   I also have another issue in that if DAD is disabled, what else makes sense to disable on the lo interface so that the interface has even more reduced processing to deal with. 

You do not need to disable DAD on lo.  Do it all you want.

But don't do DAD for interface A address on interface B.  This is the point everybody has been making.

So, if you have an address on lo, there is no reason to do DAD for that on eth0, eth1, pos3/4, or anything else in your box - as you wouldn't do DAD for the eth0 address on eth1.

Unrelated interfaces.

And on lo0, there is no other party to conflict with, so do DAD if you want, or do not do DAD.  Nobody cares.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279