On 04/23/2013 01:37 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 04/23/2013 12:55 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: >>>> And I would observe that the DAD problem cannot be solved ina >>>> reliable way. >>> >>> Could you please elaborate? >> >> (Moving to the ipv6 mailing list, as this is way too detailed for the >> main IETF list.) >> >> The goal is to use the same address when repeatedly visiting the same >> network. However, since we are using random numbers, we do not have >> guarantees that these addresses will not collide. Suppose that two >> hosts, A and B, want to use the same "colliding" addresses. If A >> connects first, B will have to use a fallback address. If B connects >> first, it will be A's turn to use a fallback address. That means >> that, given collisions, we fundamentally cannot guarantee that "the >> same host will always have the same address on the same network." > > Agreed. But we have 64-bit Interface IDs. If you get collisions, and you > get the nodes connecting in different sequences... well... call that > "bad luck" ;-) > > At the end of the day, you cannot guarantee that because the TCP > checksum is valid and e.g. the Ethernet CRC is valid, the data being > transferred does not contain across, either.
s/across/errors/ -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
