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

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Fri, 13 November 2015 23:06 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 913F11B3450 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:06:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1_tjj-yENFdz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 633551B3429 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:06:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1306; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1447455984; x=1448665584; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Hzg0LF7vqWB6UBTLUmJoSunncMq5D+epmNHe1O+DYUU=; b=J68FZBE52qE5NTgsE3QDP6/N/QNNMCo8+ziS5PNsveLiLNOYWf7l0YkL I6DzhuR52VrgmyF+6Qiew1mloFJqgRmYN8+YIWsOX17jLN7BxN/TzG3SF CKjeTIn7TD39PBfPo0gM1thkh0iwVs80ayMBlYYc8FcJhZtPmNgmKNa4B Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ArAgDLa0ZW/5BdJa1egzuBQga+RgENg?= =?us-ascii?q?WSGEAIcgSI4FAEBAQEBAQGBCoQ0AQEBBCMRRQwEAgEIEQQBAQMCIwMCAgIwFAE?= =?us-ascii?q?ICAIEDgUIiCawFZA7AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBGIEBilGHdYFEBZZIA?= =?us-ascii?q?Y0fnEsBHwEBQoIRHYFWcoQ2gQcBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,289,1444694400"; d="scan'208";a="208356783"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Nov 2015 23:06:23 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id tADN6NF4024135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:06:23 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-005.cisco.com (64.101.220.145) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 18:06:22 -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 18:06:22 -0500
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]
Thread-Index: AQHRFohEbga31qC+rEetrILg3VHRBZ6LRgsAgAa8AYCAAnb/AIAFJeaAgAAIg4CAAEiPQIAAXDaA//+8puCAAJNfgP//ymfwgABnY4D//75MIAAMrMUAAAokG4A=
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 23:06:22 +0000
Message-ID: <dcc3058655eb45319b5f2431db9667b0@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.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> <D76E6E81-419B-459D-AF5F-A6B8781CF445@delong.com> <a562066cf4d14f80aa94de314c27d632@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com> <F5469EDB-E8E3-459A-ACF0-C9B2F11A8968@delong.com> <1c64119717ac4cc5a1e88dc8175af92f@XCH-RTP-005.cisco.com> <38D33D99-5075-4A52-9B57-9FEC9B088EF0@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <38D33D99-5075-4A52-9B57-9FEC9B088EF0@delong.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: [10.82.255.174]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ry97N509G6mNW2Wdj7ZYC4OYqlo>
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 23:06:25 -0000


-----Original Message-----
From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen@delong.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:49 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] DAD again [was: draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion]


>I would argue that DAD on a lo interface is an absurd concept. By definition the addresses on a lo interface should not be outside of the exclusive control of the host in question and it should know all >addresses in use on the lo interface.

Where does the buck stop? If the lo interface does not perform DAD, the interface should not join the all-nodes and its solicited-node multicast address?   The lo interface should not support ND address resolution either.  The interfaces ends up not supporting any ND nor any DAD.

If the lo interface does not perform DAD, as I said before, set the DupAddrDetectTransmits variable for the interface to be zero. 

Hemant