Subject: DAD for stateful address autoconfig

From: Siva Veerepalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:17:23 -0800

The IPv6 Stateless Address autoconfiguration RFC states that address 
obtained via stateful address autoconfig should be tested for uniqueness.

For stateful address config, since state is maintained it is unlikely that 
the same address would be assigned to two different interfaces. Isn't it? 
Why then is DAD required when an address is obtained via stateful address 
autoconfig?

Thanks,
Siva

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 15:11:24 +0900

actually DAD has a redundant processing, because it is far more likely
to succeed than fail.
as "Optimistic DAD" 
"....where the collision probability is likely to be much higher due to
human error. "

Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Siva Veerepalli
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:17 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: DAD for stateful address autoconfig

The IPv6 Stateless Address autoconfiguration RFC states that address 
obtained via stateful address autoconfig should be tested for
uniqueness.

For stateful address config, since state is maintained it is unlikely
that 
the same address would be assigned to two different interfaces. Isn't
it? 
Why then is DAD required when an address is obtained via stateful
address 
autoconfig?

Thanks,
Siva

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:37:21 +0900

>"....where the collision probability is likely to be much higher due to

	what are you trying to mean?  optimistic DAD is not really accepted
	wg consensus, no real deployed codebase...

itojun

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 16:49:06 +0900

um....
I just speak for collision probalility during stateful
autoconfiguration, not related to the Optimistic DAD.

Daniel

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 4:37 PM
To: Soohong Daniel Park
Cc: 'Siva Veerepalli'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: DAD for stateful address autoconfig

>to succeed than fail. as "Optimistic DAD"

	what are you trying to mean?  optimistic DAD is not really
accepted
	wg consensus, no real deployed codebase...

itojun

---

From: "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 12:51:37 +1100

> 	wg consensus, no real deployed codebase...

Indeed it isn't :-)

I think Daniel's point was that the possibility of address collision
with stateful address autoconf is perhaps higher than that for 
stateless address autoconf, due to the possbility of human
(developer, sysadmin, user) error.  I'm not sure than this is
true for this situation, but that's probably why it's in the draft.

-----Nick