[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       netbsd-tech-net
Subject:    Re: IPv6 socket behaviour different to =?UTF-8?Q?IPv=34=3F?=
From:       Roy Marples <roy () marples ! name>
Date:       2014-06-04 20:09:03
Message-ID: ec8f3c52b453497301949458d94fe4dc () mail ! marples ! name
[Download RAW message or body]

On 04/06/2014 21:02, 神明達哉 wrote:
> Ah, okay.  So, as I understand it, this is not an issue of DAD but an
> issue of DNA, and, more specifically, a matter of how precisely we
> implement it.

It's not really DNA either. I just used that RFC as an example of why 
the behavior as I see it is required.
If you don't perform DAD on link change then why bother with DAD at all?

>  Disabling DAD on that interface certainly looks too
> much if the purpose is to allow node-local communication using a
> "detached" address.  One possibility would be to introduce a tweakable
> switch that disables the DNA operation at the risk of allowing the
> small window on link up.  Another, probably more substantial but
> probably cleaner change would be to allow using a detached address for
> (node) local communication (e.g., allow bind() but filter out packets
> using a detached address if they are sent to the wire rather than
> loopback).

I've not tested this, but wouldn't a host route to the interface address 
via the loopback address work?

Roy
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]