[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47853825.2030002@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 16:09:57 -0500
From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明
<yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>, kkeil@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux IPv6 DAD not full conform to RFC 4862 ?
Neil Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:57AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
>> In article <20080109153656.GA16962@...gi.kke.suse.de> (at Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:36:56 +0100), Karsten Keil <kkeil@...e.de> says:
>>
>>> So I think we should disable the interface now, if DAD fails on a
>>> hardware based LLA.
>> I don't want to do this, at least, unconditionally.
>>
>> Options (not exclusive):
>>
>> - we could have "dad_reaction" interface variable and
>> > 1: disable interface
>> = 1: disable IPv6
>> < 0: ignore (as we do now)
>>
> I like the flexibility of this solution, but given that the only part of the RFC
> that we're missing on at the moment is that we SHOULD disable the interface on
> DAD failure for a link-local address, I would think this scheme would be good:
>
> < 0 : ignore, and del address from interface (current behavior)
> = 0 : disable interface for dad failure for a link-local address
> > 0 : disable interface for dad failure for any address
>
> Regards
> Neil
>
Just a friendly reminder that such a scheme should only be
applied to autoconfigured addresses. A manually configured
duplicated address should not bring down the whole interface.
-vlad
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists