Hello,
I would appreciate it if anyone could inform me of the outcome of the
DAD vs. DIID discussion in Yokohama. The meeting minutes are
not available at playground.sun yet.
Regards
Nils Nordbotten
> I would appreciate it if anyone could inform me of the outcome of
> the DAD vs. DIID discussion in Yokohama. The meeting minutes are not
> available at playground.sun yet.
consensus in the room was for DAD.
there was also a discussion whether DAD should be done only on
manually c
In your previous mail you wrote:
consensus in the room was for DAD.
=> it should be very fine to get an official position about this.
there was also a discussion whether DAD should be done only on
manually configured addresses, and not on MAC address derived and
random ones. no
> there was also a discussion whether DAD should be done only on
> manually configured addresses, and not on MAC address derived and
> random ones. no consensus in the room. Erik Nordmark suggested
> "optimistic DAD", but there was no time to discuss it.
I hope I merely suggested that "optimistic
>> optimistic DAD looks to me to be a good compromise.
>A possible implication of optimistic DAD (i.e. where an address is assigned
>to the interface and used before it is known whether it is a duplicate) is
>that
> - neighbor caches in order nodes will have the wrong information and need
> to b
Date:Mon, 29 Jul 2002 12:53:16 +0200
From:"Nils Agne Nordbotten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <014001c236ee$24fecd30$8cb9d8c1@nansb>
| While this is simple in traditional LANs I'm worried about the consequences
| in networks like Bluetooth scatternets where dev
> From: Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>I'm not saying above is bad situation. It does require implementation
>to keep track of each combination, to remember wich prefix/id
>combinations have collided (or it has to keep a separate list of
>collided addresses, so that it does
Date:Tue, 30 Jul 2002 07:33:07 +0300 (EEST)
From:Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| > I don't agree with the first sentence there, I think I'm (a) someone...
| I'd like to hear what kind of network configuration you have in mind.
O
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> optimistic DAD looks to me to be a good compromise.
> >A possible implication of optimistic DAD (i.e. where an address is assigned
> >to the interface and used before it is known whether it is a duplicate) is
> >that
> > - neighbor caches in order
>Wouldn't it be much much simpler just to do DIID? I see zero reason for
>e.g. PRFX1::1/64 and PRFX2::1/64 being assigned on two different nodes in
>a same subnet.
i see zero reason for prohibiting the above configuration.
itojun
---
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:11:00 +0200,
> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Apparently, KAME is not able to configure multiple plain IDs to be
>combined freely with all announced prefixes? Or can it?
> => I believe KAME has a notion of "the" id of the interface.
No, KA
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Wouldn't it be much much simpler just to do DIID? I see zero reason for
> >e.g. PRFX1::1/64 and PRFX2::1/64 being assigned on two different nodes in
> >a same subnet.
>
> i see zero reason for prohibiting the above configuration.
But you a
Date:Mon, 29 Jul 2002 07:25:53 +0300 (EEST)
From:Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > >Wouldn't it be much much simpler just to do DIID? I see zero reason for
| > >e.g. PRFX1::1/64
In your previous mail you wrote:
>i see zero reason for prohibiting the above configuration.
=> I should say I agree with Itojun...
If disabled, perform DAD for every address without any optimizations.
=> IMHO the worse solution is to get a mix of DAD and DIIDD (as today).
DAD
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> for this reason, i'm not a fan of optimistic DAD. my preference
> is to run full DAD (will take 1 second or so), for every address
> assigned to the node. the rule is simple - run it for every address
> you assign to the node, that's all.
>Then, I would like to have some consideration on how to behave in the
>following situation:
> - I've 3 prefixes and 3 ids, thus I have total of 9 addresses DADded.
> - I receive 4th prefix, => I do a DAD for 3 new addresses. Do I do
> them in parallel or do I have to do them one after another?
> for this reason, i'm not a fan of optimistic DAD. my preference
> is to run full DAD (will take 1 second or so), for every address
> assigned to the node. the rule is simple - run it for every address
> you assign to the node, that's all.
While this is simple in traditional LANs I'm worried a
In your previous mail you wrote:
Then, I would like to have some consideration on how to behave in the
following situation:
- I've 3 prefixes and 3 ids, thus I have total of 9 addresses DADded.
=> it is uncommon to have 3 ids (usually there are only one or two)...
- I rece
In your previous mail you wrote:
While this is simple in traditional LANs I'm worried about the consequences
in networks like Bluetooth scatternets where devices in power saving modes
will have to be waked up. I also imagine there easily will be partitions in
such networks, and that
On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Robert Elz wrote:
> | But you agree that the above configuration is very rare, really just a
> | "corner case". Someone _might_ want it though.
>
> I don't agree with the first sentence there, I think I'm (a) someone...
I'd like to hear what kind of network configurati
> X-Authentication-Warning: sunroof.eng.sun.com: majordomo set sender to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] using -f
> From: Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> One obvious one is when I have two links, and have assigned pfx1::1 to
> my favourite node on one of them, and pfx2::1 to my favourite (different)
> node
In your previous mail you wrote:
> One obvious one is when I have two links, and have assigned pfx1::1 to
> my favourite node on one of them, and pfx2::1 to my favourite (different)
> node on the other, and then I decide to merge the links into one. Applying
> both prefixes to the l
comment before
> we make any final decision, of course.
I went through the minutes and presentation of
Yokohama meeting about "DAD vs. DIID Discussion".
Maybe I am missing something here, but, if the
Interface Identifier is not unique anymore on a
link, what is it then supposed to ide
Hi Robert,
>Maybe I am missing something here, but, if the
>Interface Identifier is not unique anymore on a
>link, what is it then supposed to identify and
>be used for ?
The suggestion doesn't change the purpose of an IID, just
the scope of its uniqueness.
In the current (pre-change) addressi
Hi Margaret,
Thank you for your clarification. I now get the point.
> This change would modify the scope of that uniqueness
> to be a subnet prefix, not the whole link. So,
> within a set of interfaces using a particular
> subnet prefix, the IID would identify a particular
> interface.
>
> (..
Hi Robert,
>Though, it is not entirely clear to me why
>the /subnet IID uniqueness rather than the /link
>uniqueness makes the case of privacy addresses easier.
To ensure IID uniqueness on a link, a node that implements
privacy addresses would need to generate a link-local
address for each ran
> From: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To ensure IID uniqueness on a link, a node that implements
> privacy addresses would need to generate a link-local
> address for each randomly generated IID (in addition to the
> global address generated for privacy), perform DAD on
> that addres
rgaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 9:59 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: DAD vs. DIID
>
>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> >Maybe I am missing something here, but, if the
> >Interface Identifier is not
Hi Margaret,
> -Original Message-
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: DAD vs. DIID
>
>
>
> Hi Robert,
>
> >Though, it
Hi Margaret,
To the technical discourse below.
> -Original Message-
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 12:05 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: DAD vs. DIID
>
>
>
> Hi R
Date:Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:37:59 -0400
From:"Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| We had no such consensus.
Yes, in the room, there was very clear support for this. Margaret
was correct.
| In fact it was stated we had to take this to
Date:Mon, 12 Aug 2002 22:34:39 -0400
From:"Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| As long as if two networks merge the following is strictly prohibited:
|
| two nodes now appear on the network with:
|
| 4ff3::2
| 4ff3::2
Jim,
> From: Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But it seems that there aren't actually any such implementations, everyone
> I have seen who has reported has said they do DAD on all addresses before
> configuring them. The fact that everyone did that was one of the
> motivations for the change.
Here
I recall many of us having concerns to review it. You included.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Elz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:52 AM
> To: Bound, Jim
> Cc: Margaret Wasserman; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subj
The code I wrote for T64 does the same.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: Markku Savela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 11:27 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subj
Markku Savela wrote:
> > From: Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > But it seems that there aren't actually any such implementations, everyone
> > I have seen who has reported has said they do DAD on all addresses before
> > configuring them. The fact that everyone did that was one of the
> >
- Original Message -
From: "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I recall many of us having concerns to review it. You included.
> /jim
>
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
Jim Fleming
2002:[IPv4]:000X:03DB:...IPv8 is closer than you think...
http://www.iana.org/assignments
Date:Tue, 13 Aug 2002 18:26:45 +0300
From:Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| As a consequence, and observing that others may not have chosen this
| tactics, the code also defends plain ID, that is: if it sees a DAD for
| address
> From: Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> But can you test what happens if you configure an address on some other
> node (using a different implementation), that happens to be one that yor
> node will assign, without doing DAD on it explicitly, and then start
> your node after that.
I think the
> From: Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 5. Router send RA with P1::/64
Should be obvious to everyone, but just to be clear: that P1::/64 must
naturally have A=1. If A=0, node A will never try to configure
"P1::AI" and thus there is no collision.
--
Date:Wed, 14 Aug 2002 12:42:07 +0300
From:Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| - Node B is the evil one :-).
I don't think we need to characterize them, no deicide which is misconfigured.
All that matters, is that you have shown what
> From: Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The Yokohama meeting room's opinion was that "just DAD on every
> address before assigning it" was the way to go.
But, in my honest opinion, that decision is wrong. Doing DAD on every
address is in all respects more costly
- implementation requires more
Date:Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:24:44 +0300
From:Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| - implementation requires more complex code
I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The DAD approach is
simple to understand and to code ... any time
All,
>
> Ok, first definitions:
>
> - Node A, has "globally unigue" id = AI, implements "link local"
> optimization (does DAD only on fe80::AI).
>
> - Node B is the evil one :-). It has its own "globally unique" id = BI
> for it's link local
>
I agree. Our implementation won't allow a
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 2:21 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: DAD vs. DIID
>
>
>
>
>
> All,
>
> >
> > Ok, firs
In your previous mail you wrote:
Here I have to raise a hand. I wrote implementation that actually
followed the allowed optimization: do DAD only on link-local, and then
freely combine that ID with announced prefixes WITHOUT doing a
separate DAD for EACH prefix*ID combination.
=>
> From: Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date:Wed, 14 Aug 2002 14:24:44 +0300
> From:Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | - implementation requires more complex code
>
> I don't know how you reach that conclusion. The DAD appr
Hello folks,
I have been trying to catch up by reading all the e-mails,
but that's very hard these days!
I think that DIID is simpler to understand and
administer, and is besides much more scalable in the
number of prefixes. Furthermore, try as I have to
understand why anywone would prefer the
Maybe a summary would help:
"DIID":
- Nodes need to create a link-local address
corresponding to every IID they use on a given
link (and perform DAD on it).
- Nodes don't need to perform DAD for non link-local
address.
- Multi-link subnet routers would have to defend
link-local add
> From: "Brian Zill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> My take: given that it appears the majority of implementations currently
> do "DAD", and that "DAD" provides for a cleaner multi-link subnet
> architecture, I think "DAD" is the better choice.
Umm.. "majority of implementations"? What is this? How do
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:37:16 -0700,
> "Brian Zill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> My take: given that it appears the majority of implementations currently
> do "DAD", and that "DAD" provides for a cleaner multi-link subnet
> architecture, I think "DAD" is the better choice.
(Aside from t
Hello Brian,
I haven't studied the multi-link subnet draft. But, in order
to be responsive to your note before taking that time...
Brian Zill wrote:
> "DIID":
> - Nodes need to create a link-local address
>corresponding to every IID they use on a given
>link (and perform DAD on it).
Hi Brian,
Although I generally agree with your other thoughts on DIID vs. DAD,
I don't understand these portions:
>"DIID":
> - Multi-link subnet routers would have to defend
>link-local addresses across links, which could be
>considered confusing and nonsensical.
>
>"DAD":
> - No stra
> From: Markku Savela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> > From: "Brian Zill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > My take: given that it appears the majority of
> > implementations currently do "DAD", and that "DAD"
> > provides for a cleaner multi-link subnet architecture,
> > I think "DAD" is the better
Hi Charlie,
> I haven't studied the multi-link subnet draft. But, in order
> to be responsive to your note before taking that time...
I guess we're just going to have to disagree about link-local vs.
subnet-local. These are two distinct scopes and should be treated as
such by the architecture
At 03:17 PM 8/20/02 , Brian Zill wrote:
>Hi Charlie,
>
> > I haven't studied the multi-link subnet draft. But, in order
> > to be responsive to your note before taking that time...
>
>I guess we're just going to have to disagree about link-local vs.
>subnet-local. These are two distinct scopes
> -Original Message-
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
> So, while you indicate that a link-local address may not be able to
> reach all nodes on a subnet, isn't it also true that a subnet-local
> address may not be able to reach all of the nodes on a link?
Since
On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Dave Thaler wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> [...]
> > So, while you indicate that a link-local address may not be able to
> > reach all nodes on a subnet, isn't it also true that a subnet-local
> > address may not
Date:Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:41:05 -0400
From:Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| What surprised me is the assumption that a subnet scope would be "larger"
| than a link-local scope. I've had experience running multiple subnets
Hi Dave,
I'm not talking about the limited way in which the "subnet-local"
multicast scope works today, but about the definition of a subnet.
The word "subnet" means a group of nodes that share a common global
prefix, including subnet ID. The fact that we don't have a multicast
mechanism to s
> The whole issue comes from the introduction of "privacy" and generated
> addresses.
Actually, not so. The issue can also comes up with DHCP-assigned
addresses.
Thomas
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:
tation that I've heard that has done this.
Note: one thing we could all be better about is defining just what
"DAD vs. DIID" means.
Some people seem to think that that DIID means "for every address,
also create a link-local address and run DAD on it too." This in
general,
Hello Brian,
As I wrote before, but perhaps buried in other text,
I think that IP should only be concerned about the
"subnet-local" concept, not the "link-local" concept,
if we are to use those terms as distinguishable concepts.
When the link-local addresses were being first discussed,
I don't
"Charles E. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When the link-local addresses were being first discussed,
> I don't remember any discussion that suggested that a
> "link" should have a different extent than a "subnet".
Note: the term "subnet-local" has a specific meaning with regards to
multi
> From: Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Note: one thing we could all be better about is defining just what
> "DAD vs. DIID" means.
I had my implementation before the term "DIID" was coined. I suppose,
in the effect, if I have the "id defense m
> From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
> As I wrote before, but perhaps buried in other text,
> I think that IP should only be concerned about the
> "subnet-local" concept, not the "link-local" concept,
> if we are to use those terms as distinguishable concepts.
> When the lin
> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
[...]
> I'm not talking about the limited way in which the "subnet-local"
> multicast scope works today, but about the definition of a subnet.
>
> The word "subnet" means a group of nodes that share a common global
> prefix, including subnet I
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Dave Thaler wrote:
> > Besides,
> > as Pekka pointed out, none of the nodes on the link will have joined
> > the subnet-local multicast group, so the traffic actually won't reach
> > any of them.
>
> Eh? It will reach all of them,
^
> and will
Date:Wed, 21 Aug 2002 08:31:32 -0700
From:"Charles E. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| As I tried to point out
| in my previous message, IP doesn't have any business
| messing around with details about how the subnet is
| actuall
> > but
> > we shouldn't pretend that "subnet-local" multicast is possible, since
> > it isn't.
>
>"Subnet-local" multicast is indeed possible.
>"Network-prefix-local" multicast is not possible.
While I'm not sure that I agree with the terminology, since this is a change
from the common use of t
Date:Thu, 22 Aug 2002 00:46:24 +0300
From:Markku Savela <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The main fact is that my version is just an implementation based on
| the autoconfigure RFC, taking the allowed DAD optimization (= do DAD
| on link-loc
> From: Robert Elz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | The main fact is that my version is just an implementation based on
> | the autoconfigure RFC, taking the allowed DAD optimization (= do DAD
> | on link-local, combine id with announced prefixes without doing DAD on
> | those combinations).
>
a clarification...
> Yes, in this case if two nodes happen to have same id, doing DAD on
> all addresses would detect the collision. But, you are hosed anyway,
> as those same nodes are also using the same link local address (they
> have same id, they are on same link => both have fe80::id, and
>
In your previous mail you wrote:
Always do DAD, no optimisation allowed, is the best approach.
=> I fully agree and I'd like to see according specifications updated ASAP.
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPng Working Gro
> From: "Deshpande, Prasad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I have some questions related to multiple IIDs on an interface
>
> - When and why would someone configure multiple IIDs on an interface?
offhand, perpaps
- for a server you might want manually configure nice "prefix::1"
address in addition to
> -Original Message-
> From: Markku Savela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: DAD vs. DIID
>
> - I've 3 prefixes and 3 ids, thus I hav
> > From: "Deshpande, Prasad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I have some questions related to multiple IIDs on an interface
> >
> > - When and why would someone configure multiple IIDs on an
> interface?
>
> offhand, perpaps
>
> - for a server you might want manually configure nice "prefix::1"
>
Date:Mon, 29 Jul 2002 13:05:49 -0400
From:"Deshpande, Prasad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| - When and why would someone configure multiple IIDs on an interface?
One obvious place would be for various kinds of "hot standby" protocols,
when
78 matches
Mail list logo
