Re: [DNA] [Issue 15] [Issue 16] DAD and MLD Interaction

[Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>]

Hi James & Eric,

James Kempf wrote:
[cut]
>>
>>Multihoming is out of scope of RFC 2461 for a good reason :-)
>>
>>I actually don't think we want to overload the deprecated or any other
>>existing state with the notion that an interface is (suspected to be)
>>not working, or flaky, or high packet loss. I think all those quality
>>metrics should be captured using a separate mechanism. The the stack,
>>when it has multiple interfaces to choose from, take those quality
>>metrics into account.
>>
> 
> 
> So then it sounds like we should keep the address state unchanged until the
> Link Up, and only then change to Optimistic.
> 
> 
>>My 2 cents,
> 
> 
> Anybody else have a comment?

Sounds like a reasonable assumption.

Should this be tied to the Link-Up indications, or to the DNA reception
and processing of hints?

For example, if no link-layer indication is received does the
reception of an 'unexpected' RA and subsequent initiation of
DNA operations cause Optimistic to be set?

I'd guess it's tied to DNA initiation, rather than the Link-Up
explicitly.

Greg