Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis issue 280] interface failure upon DAD failure

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:13:16 +0200

Hi Jinmei,

> - Thomas made a good point about the rationale of the SHOULD (DAD
>   failure for an EUI-64 based address likely indicates MAC address
>   duplication).  We should also note that John (Loughney) pointed out
>   the assumption in 2462 is not necessarily met for the 3GPP case (I
>   don't know what exactly he wanted to say, though)

I discussed this with Thomas at the last IETF, and as long as the SHOULD
covers only DAD failures for EUI-64 based addresses, than it covers
my concerns.

thanks,
John

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:09:04 +0900

>>>>> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:13:16 +0200, 
>>>>> [email-masked] said:

> covers only DAD failures for EUI-64 based addresses, than it covers

The new revision revised this section as follows:

5.4.5 When Duplicate Address Detection Fails

   A tentative address that is determined to be a duplicate as described
   above MUST NOT be assigned to an interface and the node SHOULD log a
   system management error. If the address is a link-local address
   formed from an interface identifier based on the hardware address
   (e.g., EUI-64), the interface SHOULD be disabled. In this case, the
   IP address duplication probably means duplicate hardware addresses
   are in use, and trying to recover from it by configuring another IP
   address will not result in a usable network. In fact, it probably
   makes things worse by creating problems that are harder to diagnose
   than just shutting down the interface; the user will see a partially
   working network where some things work, and other things will not. On
   the other hand, if the duplicated link-local address is not formed
   from an interface identifier based on the hardware address, the
   interface MAY continue to be used.

Would you live with this?

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 12:24:11 +0200

Jinmei,

>    interface MAY continue to be used.

Ok.

--Jari