In your previous mail you wrote: > Omitting DAD altogether removes the ability to detect and correct > address collisions, whereas optimizations such as Optimistic DAD > mean that while there may be a short term disruption the problem > will be detected and corrected. > > => in the real world this kind of problem cannot be corrected... > The only thing you can do is to avoid to reproduce the same error again. That's a rather broad statement to make, since there may not be L2 address conflicts, and EUI based v6 addresses may not be used. => L2 address conflicts are very uncommon. Personally I never got one. The usual problem is a config which is copied but not updated, and the auto-conf does not save you because it is not used for every nodes.
What really matters then is the effect on (the real) address owner's and configuring node's applications. => usually both the real owner and the offender are dead. Murphy's law makes the real owner an important server. I think it's worth getting implementors' experience with address conflicts with DAD, without DAD and with optimizations. => I am an implementor and from time to time a network manager so I can say that: - address duplications happen - at least once DAD saved us from real trouble even the IPv6 network was very small at this time So I really believe in the DAD usefulness and if you'd like to remove or "optimize" DAD on one of my networks my answer will be "NO!". Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] > PS: optimistic DAD is like optimistic russian roulette: look at in the > chamber after to check it is empty. That's highly emotive talk which doesn't help the discussion. => the optimistic DAD is an old topic now and I believe some of us don't (didn't? :-) understand our opinion about it. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
