On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> optimistic DAD looks to me to be a good compromise. > >A possible implication of optimistic DAD (i.e. where an address is assigned > >to the interface and used before it is known whether it is a duplicate) is > >that > > - neighbor caches in order nodes will have the wrong information and need > > to be switched back to the correct, original information once DAD fails. > > - TCP connections might be reset (a packet arrives at the new node, which > > doesn't have the TCP state so it sends a reset; the real "owner" of the > > address has the TCP state) > > for this reason, i'm not a fan of optimistic DAD. my preference > is to run full DAD (will take 1 second or so), for every address > assigned to the node. the rule is simple - run it for every address > you assign to the node, that's all.
Wouldn't it be much much simpler just to do DIID? I see zero reason for e.g. PRFX1::1/64 and PRFX2::1/64 being assigned on two different nodes in a same subnet. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
