The IPv6 Stateless Address autoconfiguration RFC states that address
obtained via stateful address autoconfig should be tested for uniqueness.
For stateful address config, since state is maintained it is unlikely that
the same address would be assigned to two different interfaces. Isn't it?
Why
ROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Siva Veerepalli
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 8:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: DAD for stateful address autoconfig
The IPv6 Stateless Address autoconfiguration RFC states that address
obtained via stateful address autoconfig should be tested for
uniqueness.
>actually DAD has a redundant processing, because it is far more likely
>to succeed than fail.
>as "Optimistic DAD"
>"where the collision probability is likely to be much higher due to
>human error. "
what are you trying to mean? optimistic DAD is not really accepted
wg conse
Cc: 'Siva Veerepalli'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DAD for stateful address autoconfig
>actually DAD has a redundant processing, because it is far more likely
>to succeed than fail. as "Optimistic DAD"
>"where the collision probability is likely to
On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 04:37:21PM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> what are you trying to mean? optimistic DAD is not really accepted
> wg consensus, no real deployed codebase...
Indeed it isn't :-)
I think Daniel's point was that the possibility of address collision
with state
> For stateful address config, since state is maintained it is unlikely that
> the same address would be assigned to two different
> interfaces. Isn't it?
I'm not sure this assumption is valid.
Note that in DHCPv4, nodes are also supposed to see if someone else is
already using the address befo
