Margaret, I think all vendors will provide option to disable DAD and take the risk.
The IETF specs are not like laws where they can really be enforced. If a customer and set of vendors have a good reason to not use a MUST in a spec they will for business reasons. And there is not a thing the IETF can do about it. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 2:58 AM > To: Hesham Soliman (ERA) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Should DAD be optional? [Was > draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?] > > > > Hi Hesham, > > Thanks for the quick response. > > >=> Then let's begin the discussions. The only reason > >for standardising the draft in the IPv6 WG was to make > >sure that we're doing the right thing. Otherwise an > >informational RFC wouldn't have to go through the > >IPv6 WG or could have been replaced by a 3GPP spec. > >But since the competence is here, it is crucial > >that we get feedback. > > That sounds good. Let's begin the discussions... > > I'll send separate threads for each issue. > > > > It is not my impression that the WG has reached > consensus on some > > > of the issues raised in this document, specifically: > > > > > > - Forbidding the use of DAD on some links > > > >=> DAD is not needed if address duplication is not > >possible. Since each terminal gets a unique > >/64 (as per the advice draft), and since all terminals > >are on p2p links, DAD would be a waste of BW. > >But please have a closer look and let us know > >if something was missed. > > Address duplication is possible on point-to-point links, because > one end may choose an address that is already in use by the other > end. I don't think that this is very likely, but it is possible. > > 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.] > > Margaret > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
