I thought it's prudent to also include the 6man mailer in my reply to Tina.
Regards, Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 4:56 PM To: Tina TSOU; draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-...@tools.ietf.org Cc: 6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt Tina, Humble apologies for the delayed reply. Please see below. -----Original Message----- From: Tina TSOU [mailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:27 PM To: draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-...@tools.ietf.org Cc: 6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt >The draft proposes the use of Enhanced DAD Algorithm for detecting looped back >NS ( DAD) message. It suggests the use of Nonce option in the SEND >message. >Considering that two router might generate the same nonce, would it be >preferable to have unique nonce id? Since the nonce option is of 6 >bytes, the >problem of two ipv6 nodes generating same random nonce option would be to most >extent rectified. Do you really think a 6 bytes number has a chance of collision? It's very less likely. Besides, the Enhanced DAD algorithm has no problem for your use case. Each router interface processes a looped back DAD if one is looped back. >Moreover depending on the number of interfaces running IPv6, would each >interface have its own nonce number used for DAD? Or does the IPv6 node >maintain >one common nonce for all its interfaces running IPv6? Please see the above question answered in the 6man mailer. Each interface uses a nonce per IPv6 address used by the interface. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg16298.html >Moreover, the enhanced DAD algorithm is to enabled on both sides of the >interfaces right? Same as RFC 4862. Whatever side of an interface RFC 4862 works on, the Enhanced DAD also does the same. Our document hasn't said anything to the contrary. >If the nonce option does not match, and the target address is same ( genuine >duplicate address), the interface will be disabled? So would this be >>automated or manual intervention would be required for disabling the >interface? Automated disabling would be preferred considering the increase in >the >number of routers. Would Enhanced DAD support automated disabling? If so, >in all cases or specific cases? See section 5 of the document where automated actions are recommended for access networks. Thus cable and DSL access networks will benefit with the automated action. Thanks and regards, Hemant -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
