On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 01:38:57AM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 9 Jan 2008 16:36:56 +0100), Karsten > Keil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says: > > > So I think we should disable the interface now, if DAD fails on a > > hardware based LLA. > > I don't want to do this, at least, unconditionally. > > Options (not exclusive): > > - we could have "dad_reaction" interface variable and > > 1: disable interface > = 1: disable IPv6 > < 0: ignore (as we do now) > I like the flexibility of this solution, but given that the only part of the RFC that we're missing on at the moment is that we SHOULD disable the interface on DAD failure for a link-local address, I would think this scheme would be good:
< 0 : ignore, and del address from interface (current behavior) = 0 : disable interface for dad failure for a link-local address > 0 : disable interface for dad failure for any address Regards Neil > --yoshfuji > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
