Thomas, > One of the original motivations for disabling an interface if DAD > fails for the LL address is that if you are running DAD on a LL > address generated using the EUI-64 format, in the absence of a DOS > attack, if DAD fails, that really means duplicate ethernet addresses > are in use. In this case, the device is hosed and configuring another > address won't result in a usable network. In fact, it probably makes > things worse by creating problems that harder to diagnose than just > shutting down the interface. The user will see a partially working > network where some things work, and other things won't. > > BTW, some of the above text might be worth putting into 2462bis as > background information.
Understood about the original intention, but this may not be the case. 2462 currently says: Note that interface identifiers will typically be 64-bits long and based on EUI-64 identifiers as described in [ADDR-ARCH]. This may not always be the case. See 3GPP, for example. Also, I remember that the MIP folks wanted to be able to use a random number in place of the EUI-64 in case the DAD failed. My question, is the original quote above still a valid assumption? If so, what does 'typically' mean? John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
