On Oct 30, 2009, Alberto García wrote: > The case in which SEND hosts could have some trouble is in the DAD > procedure, since they behave different than SLAAC hosts if there is an > address collision in the second try with a non-SEND device. SEND hosts > would configure the address, but the SLAAC SAVI device would filter > all > packets from the SEND host. A good observation indeed. I personally (not as a working group chair) agree with you that this issue is minor, given the low probability for it to happen -- assuming, as you say, that the attacker is behind a SAVI device. Yet, co-existence issues like this one should be carefully documented. Perhaps every SAVI protocol specification should include a section on co-existence with SAVI protocol instances for other address assignment methods? - Christian
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.