On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Hesham Soliman (EAB) wrote: > > I don't disagree with the problem (but perhaps with how you > > treat it), but > > let me say it again: > > > > *THERE'S NOTHING MIPV6-SPECIFIC IN THAT* > > => Mobility will increase the minute probability of > collision.
Maybe, but so does WLAN roaming without MIPv6. > Anyway, that's not the point, you're saying > that you disagree with the solution, what's your alternative? > Please don't say "solve it in IPv6 WG" because that's > not a solution. The solution seems O.K. to me. However, I'm not so sure this is a problem that needs fixing. First, collisions with EUI64/RFC3041 addresses are so rare, you should not need to care too much about them -- setting the interface down might be an ok approach (that might alert the sysadmin to look what's wrong). And with statically assigned addresses, you don't want to generate a new address, of course. So the thing to worry about is someone performing a DoS in the link. But nothing prevents that local attacker from spoofing responses to *all* the DAD attempts, not just the first one. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
