From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  7 05:47:41 2009
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13E97106566C
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Thu,  7 May 2009 05:47:41 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org)
Received: from mon.jinmei.org (mon.jinmei.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:36::162])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0271A8FC1A
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Thu,  7 May 2009 05:47:41 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org)
Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (user-64-9-233-161.googlewifi.com [64.9.233.161])
	by mon.jinmei.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D5333C2E;
	Wed,  6 May 2009 22:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 22:47:35 -0700
Message-ID: <m2iqkdv4zs.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
	<Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
To: Bob Van Zant <bob@veznat.com>
In-Reply-To: <C62776C0.226E4%bob@veznat.com>
References: <m2ljp9vla0.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
	<C62776C0.226E4%bob@veznat.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 duplicate address detection
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 05:47:41 -0000

At Wed, 06 May 2009 17:17:52 -0700,
Bob Van Zant <bob@veznat.com> wrote:

> I guess that changes my question quite a bit. If you randomly fire off an
> unsolicited NA right after configuring an interface should that cause a DAD
> failure?

Actually, in that case you shouldn't send out the NA in the first
place because you're in the middle of DAD, trying to confirming the
uniqueness of the target address.  If you want to send an unsolicited
NA for an address on which DAD is performed for any reason, you should
wait until DAD is completed.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.