> I think DAD should be disableable for default for:
Did you mean disabled? > - 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) An interesting historic note is that the reason we embark on DAD (back at the Stockholm IETF in the addrconf BoF/WG?) was becase even with manufacturing derived NICs there had been cases where a bunch of NICs had been shipped with the same MAC address in them. The reasoning was that doing DAD once while configuring the address seemed like a cheap approach to deal with a failure case that is otherwise extremely difficult to trouble shoot. Perhaps mobile IP and its need to configure a care-of-address in short time has changed the notion that DAD is "cheap". But I don't think the difficulty of trouble-shooting duplicate IP addresses as changed. Erik > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
