-----Original Message----- From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:49 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: james woodyatt; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Why has RFC 4941 been designed in such a way, that it might causeaddress conflicts?
>Good idea, where's the wiki? Ah, none that I know of. Also, I am only catching up to 6man email this weekend being busy in the week with v6ops emails. If a wiki does not exist for such issues, we could start one. Since our cable IPv6 home devices such as cable modems and IPv6 CE Routers (standalone or combined inside a modem) are assumed to provide no console, we have specified use of a DAD Proxy at the first-hop IPv6 router. This first-hop router is also the access concentrator (a CMTS - Cable Modem Termination System) for cable broadband. Note since the cable network is an end-to-end IP network, it is easier for cable to specify support for DAD Proxy at the CMTS. DSL which is not end-to-end at the IP layer has more issues to deal with. The reason is that a SP has console access to the CMTS and if the CMTS supports a DAD Proxy, the SP at least knows which home the failure has occurred in and take some action. Without the CMTS supporting DAD proxy, the DAD failure for a modem or CE festers for an error with the modem or CE dead in the water. Of course, the home customer would call the SP in such a situation but it's better for the SP to be proactive to catch the error before any home user calls. It's also interesting that even when the SP has detected a DAD Duplicate, what does the SP do besides shutting down one of the two nodes that clashed for the same IPv6 link-local address. Thanks, Hemant -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
