From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [IPV6] ADDRCONF: Defer dad for global address until dad for linklocal is completed. Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:30:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080521.133038.76262737.davem@davemloft.net> References: <4832C3CC.5070609@miraclelinux.com> <20080522.015807.02348209.yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org> <48345C4C.6020106@miraclelinux.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-2022-jp Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: tabe@miraclelinux.com Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:35587 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755543AbYEUUan (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2008 16:30:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48345C4C.6020106@miraclelinux.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Toyo Abe Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 02:30:52 +0900 > YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > > In article <4832C3CC.5070609@miraclelinux.com> (at Tue, 20 May 2008 21:27:56 +0900), Toyo Abe says: > >> Since current addrconf code actually accepts RA including prefix option > >> while DAD for > >> linklocal address is processing, changes of the behaviour looks like a > >> degradation for me. > >> Hence, I chose to accept RA at that moment and defer sending DAD NS for > >> global addresses. > > > > Well I don't think so. > > We should choose simpler way - avoid introducing new "unique" state so far. > > > > If you really think is worth accepting RA during DAD for link-local > > address, we should cancel all of on-going DADs for global address(es) > > if the RA for link-local address has failed, intead of deferring DAD > > for global address(es). > > > You're right. I agree with you that it'd be better than mine. Hideaki-san, let me know if I should apply your patch. Thank you.