Re: [rfc2462bis issue 275] DAD text inconsistencies

[Greg Daley <greg.daley at eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi Francis,

Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>    > >    - whether omitting/optimizing DAD is a good idea
>    > 
>    > => IMHO this is the same thing, i.e., optimizing gives the same result
>    > than omitting.
>    
>    Omitting DAD altogether removes the ability to detect and correct
>    address collisions, whereas optimizations such as Optimistic DAD
>    mean that while there may be a short term disruption the problem
>    will be detected and corrected.
>    
> => in the real world this kind of problem cannot be corrected...
> The only thing you can do is to avoid to reproduce the same error again.
That's a rather broad statement to make,
since there may not be L2 address conflicts, and
EUI based v6 addresses may not be used.

What really matters then is the effect on (the real)
address owner's and configuring node's applications.

I think it's worth getting implementors' experience
with address conflicts with DAD, without DAD and with
optimizations.

> Regards
>
> Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
>
> PS: optimistic DAD is like optimistic russian roulette: look at in the
> chamber after to check it is empty.
That's highly emotive talk which doesn't help the discussion.

Greg


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------