On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > However, making DAD optional (and advising against the use of DAD) > on point-to-point links, is in direct conflict with RFC 2462, > which says: > > "Duplicate Address Detection MUST take place on all unicast > addresses, regardless of whether they are obtained through > stateful, stateless or manual configuration..." > > I don't think that we should publish an informational document that > advises some implementors to do something that specifically > disagrees with a MUST requirement in a standards-track document. > If the standards-track document is broken, we need to fix it > instead. > > [Please note that I actually think that we should be able to > disable DAD for some link types. I made a proposal to that effect > several years ago, but my arguments didn't win the day.]
I think DAD should be disableable for default for: - addresses generated randomly - addresses that are generated from e.g. EUI64 (this might be more prone to errors, e.g. manufacturing or "stupid" multi-port NIC's where every port has the same MAC address) Most definitely not: - manually configured addresses Because DAD is not a perfect (or even nearly so) solution anyway. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
