> > > but then, if we change it to MAY, what is the point in running DAD
> > > process? if you do not disable interface (or the address on the
> > > interface) the owner of the same address will get confused,
> > > peers of the address get confused, you will do bad things to the
> > > original owner of the address.
> > >
> >
> > I see disabling the interface and disabling the address on the interface
> > as two separate actions.
> >
> > So, I agree that the interface MAY be disabled.
>
> Agreed. It is Duplicate ADDRESS Detection, so disabling the address is reasonable,
> disabling the interface is probably too strong.
re-read the exact text, and i think the above makes sense.
so proposed change: the last part should be changed to "the interface
address SHOULD be disabled". (add "address")
itojun
5.4.5. When Duplicate Address Detection Fails
A tentative address that is determined to be a duplicate as described
above, MUST NOT be assigned to an interface and the node SHOULD log a
system management error. If the address is a link-local address
formed from an interface identifier, the interface SHOULD be
disabled.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
