Re: Linux IPv6 DAD not full conform to RFC 4862 ?

[Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>]

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:09:57PM -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> Neil Horman wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:57AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote:
>>> In article <20080109153656.GA16962@pingi.kke.suse.de> (at Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:36:56 +0100), Karsten Keil <kkeil@suse.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.
>

I agree, but I think that case would be covered by the default option above
(sysctl < 0).

Neil

> -vlad