On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 12:41:33PM +0300, Haggai Eran wrote: > On 04/06/2015 00:45, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > I don't know if that is a good idea, an unstable SLAAC is not in > > spirit with the RFCs. The safest bet is to return error and disable > > SLAAC completely. > Maybe this is a silly question, but doesn't DAD already disable SLAAC > addresses when there's a conflict? Yes, DAD should certainly trigger and disable the child, but the kernel should not rely on DAD for correctness, it is a safety net, and it isn't guarenteed 100% reliable. Jason -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
