From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Neil Horman Subject: Re: Linux IPv6 DAD not full conform to RFC 4862 ? Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:25:49 -0500 Message-ID: <20080110122549.GA17348@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <20080109153656.GA16962@pingi.kke.suse.de> <20080110.013857.37616214.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <20080109185744.GB25106@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <47853825.2030002@hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / =?utf-8?B?5ZCJ6Jek6Iux5piO?= , kkeil@suse.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Vlad Yasevich Return-path: Received: from ra.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.52]:3572 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753593AbYAJM06 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Jan 2008 07:26:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47853825.2030002@hp.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 / =E5=90= =89=E8=97=A4=E8=8B=B1=E6=98=8E wrote: >>> In article <20080109153656.GA16962@pingi.kke.suse.de> (at Wed, 9 Ja= n 2008 16:36:56 +0100), Karsten Keil 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 >>> =3D 1: disable IPv6 >>> < 0: ignore (as we do now) >>> >> I like the flexibility of this solution, but given that the only par= t of the RFC >> that we're missing on at the moment is that we SHOULD disable the in= terface on >> DAD failure for a link-local address, I would think this scheme woul= d be good: >> >> < 0 : ignore, and del address from interface (current behavior) = =3D 0 :=20 >> disable interface for dad failure for a link-local address > 0 : d= isable=20 >> interface for dad failure for any address=20 >> Regards >> Neil >> =20 > > 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 a= bove (sysctl < 0). Neil > -vlad