On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:09:57PM -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > Neil Horman wrote: >> 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 >> > > Just a friendly reminder that such a scheme should only be > applied to autoconfigured addresses. A manually configured > duplicated address should not bring down the whole interface. >
I agree, but I think that case would be covered by the default option above (sysctl < 0). Neil > -vlad -- 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