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

Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> Fri, 13 November 2015 17:46 UTC

Return-Path: <owen@delong.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 B1C1F1B4035 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:46:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.111
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.111 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 HW0lDQGWUb12 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:46:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BF1C1B4034 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:46:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from delong-dhcp229.delong.com (delong-dhcp29 [192.159.10.229]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tADHh395024589 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:43:04 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <6f8ba1d9357b4cf786df990ebe09c965@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:43:03 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D76E6E81-419B-459D-AF5F-A6B8781CF445@delong.com>
References: <8D175A1F-B1AE-44B4-838E-1C853B6C937D@cisco.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> <ad0e90cf5f74407fa5338a7b6130bd1a@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.co! m> <5645DE07.3050605@gmail.com> <6f8ba1d9357b4cf786df990ebe09c965@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com>
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/hciziAWtFNMK3QBW6K69I2BwqVU>
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 17:46:09 -0000

> On Nov 13, 2015, at 05:58 , Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 7:57 AM
> To: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
> 
> 
>> One wouldnt care about DAD on loopback interface, because it's not noise on a wire, and it's not time consuming.
> 
> So how will you deal with a duplicate IPv6 address configured on a loopback interface?  As I said in my example, a router is using the IPv6 address on a loopback interface to source packets and a duplicate is detected - the network breaks down.
> 

How is it possible to have a duplicate address on a loopback interface?

If you assign an address to a loopback interface, the address is present on the interface. If you attempt to assign it there again, it should be a no-op.

To the best of my knowledge, it is impossible to assign the same address to the same interface twice.

The duplicate address case applies when two systems on the same link have the same address. Since there is never more than one system on a loopback link by definition, it seems to me that the scenario you propose is impossible by definition.

Owen