Subject: RE: MIPv6 and ND value changes

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:51:22 +0100

> I don't disagree with the problem (but perhaps with how you 
  > treat it), but
  > let me say it again:
  > 
  > *THERE'S NOTHING MIPV6-SPECIFIC IN THAT*

=> Mobility will increase the minute probability of 
collision. Anyway, that's not the point, you're saying 
that you disagree with the solution, what's your alternative?
Please don't say "solve it in IPv6 WG" because that's 
not a solution.

Hesham

  > 
  > -- 
  > Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
  > Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
  > Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
  > 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 01:04:10 +0200 (EET)

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Hesham Soliman (EAB) wrote:
> collision. 

Maybe, but so does WLAN roaming without MIPv6.

> Anyway, that's not the point, you're saying 

The solution seems O.K. to me.

However, I'm not so sure this is a problem that needs fixing.

First, collisions with EUI64/RFC3041 addresses are so rare, you should not
need to care too much about them -- setting the interface down might be an
ok approach (that might alert the sysadmin to look what's wrong).  And 
with statically assigned addresses, you don't want to generate a new 
address, of course.

So the thing to worry about is someone performing a DoS in the link.  But
nothing prevents that local attacker from spoofing responses to *all* the
DAD attempts, not just the first one.