> 1) The draft specifies that instead of using a tentative address as the > source address for RS, another address or the unspecified address should be > used instead. To me, using the unspecified address would seem shortsighted, > so I'd like to disallow its use in this context. (This might cause a > problem, though, because I don't think the nodes typically have an another > address they can use...)
But RFC 2461 explicitly allows sending RS with an unspecified source. Is there a bug in RFC 2461 in this area? > What might be useful is specifying with which kind of addresses oDAD should > be assumed: e.g., those addresses with the universal bit on are a prime > target. Also those addresses which are randomly generated (RFC3041 or SEND) > should be OK. Manual addresses or DHCPv6 in particular should be disallowed. I can understand manual addresses having a higher collision probability than universal-bit autoconfigured ones (due to human error). But why do we think this is the case for DHCP assigned ones? The DHCP server will check that the address isn't already in its list of leases before handing it out, so a collision at DAD time would be very low probability. But is also isn't clear to me that the probability, even in the manual case, is high enough to warrant pessimistic mode. Clearly if there is 50% probability of collisions it would be bad to be optimistic, since there is some added cost in detecting the duplicate late and having transport connections initiated in the interim die out. But if the probability of collisions is 10% let alone 1% (the latter might be a guess at collision probability for manually configured addresses) why do we think it would be bad to operate in optimistic mode? Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
