IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Fri, 13 November 2015 12:31 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDFF41A049A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:31:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1Z4SYsnyJ10K for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:31:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 997661A19EF for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 04:31:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1512; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447417887; x=1448627487; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xH9bv61POhqGmcA1E9AAr5q6m64iRt2IZtpbZGf8PTc=; b=NlezyfkKIfbxnknxlI3f6/ObxWMbJ0oj+1hxXnKOVmk56GkD/ElAzOwG 6oGzC6030sm032bsosTpyow2Yr03o3u2gevze62vQ1t+6UQ3EhyUozW2V qnFMXxgYVzjhLd1e8xLGeie3jfoFg/TRmGLUYZGrEzsO39zqHUP5eVZOS o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AmAgDg1kVW/5pdJa1egzuBQga+PAENgWWGEAIcgSk4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBBCMRRRACAQYCEQQBAQMCIwMCAgIwFAEICAIEAQ0FCIgmknmdNZBXAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGIEBilGEcYMEgUQBBJZIAY0fnEsBHwEBQoIRHYFWcoQ2gQcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,287,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="206599570"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2015 12:31:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (xch-rtp-004.cisco.com [64.101.220.144]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tADCVPtZ021171 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:31:25 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) by XCH-RTP-004.cisco.com (64.101.220.144) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:31:24 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) by XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com ([64.101.220.145]) with mapi id 15.00.1104.000; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 07:31:24 -0500
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
Thread-Index: AQHRFohEbga31qC+rEetrILg3VHRBZ6LRgsAgAa8AYCAAnb/AIAFJeaAgAAIg4CAAEiPQA==
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:31:24 +0000
Message-ID: <ad0e90cf5f74407fa5338a7b6130bd1a@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com>
References: <8D175A1F-B1AE-44B4-838E-1C853B6C937D@cisco.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F391A7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAKD1Yr15C-uoxUw0kgWO-d=LmUK8qWGLS7vt+22W+k8xXtDY+g@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F393F1@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3941D@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <563811DF.9020603@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F394F7@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <563821EB.3040508@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F39A09@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <56392B6D.8030703@gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3A88F@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3A97F@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAHDzDLBG8xZxUFsAuN-7WuruZcULF1QAS_ch=gD5rGQMZfskow@mail.gmail.com> <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D9831832F3E8B0@XCH-BLV-504.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqd-1x5EJ=rkebiBFdNds6so5+iNGftiUf+MUu9P1up1bA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1X8UzQ58FeG6PYG9L1MyibV0J-JpcS2hxwzCdV=HizXg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1X8UzQ58FeG6PYG9L1MyibV0J-JpcS2hxwzCdV=HizXg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.86.241.119]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/b6loTmXqlh0VHkRbBQX10vdCbD8>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 12:31:37 -0000


From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2015 10:07 PM
To: 神明達哉
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]


>At most we could slightly amend this to ..."MUST be performed on all unicast addresses prior to assigning them to an interface except a loopback interface". Even node-internal interfaces are not >necessarily safe to omit DAD on. For example, in a mobile device the application processor and baseband processor might both be on the same link, and because they are two separate processors >running two separate network stacks, they need to do DAD.

Appendix A of RFC4862 already cautions against a loopback interface looping back DAD probes.  Did you have any other reason to disable DAD for a loopback interface?  For example, on a router, a loopback interface is configured and the IPv6 address on the interface is used to source packets.  Why would one not perform DAD for the IPv6 address used by the loopback interface?

Thanks,

Hemant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email