> | My preference is that we just ban DAD optimization in all cases. > > That's certainly an option. The "new prefix causes several thousand > nodes to all attempt DAD at the same time" argument is the one which > makes me hesitant to simply support this without further investigation.
If that is a problem then the "MAY" for the optimization in RFC 2462 wouldn't be sufficient as a solution - very few implementations do the optimization today. Possible solutions to the new prefix DAD flood could be: - mandate the DAD optimization with a MUST - update RFC 2462 to day that when a new prefix is configured (past the original "attachment" to the link) the host MUST insert a random delay before performing the DAD. - others? But do we agree that the DAD flood when a new prefix is announced is an important problem to solve? Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
