> > Except that such code will still be needed to correctly deal with an > > address that fails DAD -- which is my earlier point: you end up removing > > flexibility without being able to actually simplify the architecture > > because the state inherently exists. > > If an address fails DAD, then you should be in the same state as the > case when you have IFF_NOLOCAL set, esp for the particular case > in point (routing daemon dealing with DAD failure). Why do we need an > additional address-up flag for this?
I don't know what this has to do with my point. I will note that there is a lengthy discussion on IFF_UP, IFF_DUPLICATE and other trade-offs in Jim's excellent DAD design doc. I need to re-read it myself to ensure I remember all the subtleties here if we're really going to attempt to redesign it as part of Brussels. -- meem _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
