Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16

[Frank Xia <[e-mail]>]

Hi Syam

Even in ODAD, there is a normal DAD procedure in parallel.
END is to improve normal DAD, not ODAD.
END can co-work with ODAD well.

Any way, just as you said, is it useful enough to modify the router?

I don't know, but I think that any feasible improvement can be considered.

BR
Frank
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Syam Madanapalli 
  To: Behcet Sarikaya 
  Cc: [e-mail] 
  Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:18 AM
  Subject: Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16


  Hi Bachet,

  Doing things deterministically is always good.
  But here I am wondering if it is worth the implementation changes on the routers as well as on hosts,
  especially on p2p links where the chance of collission is very very remote as the p2p link will be
  using just two addresses out of 2 ^64.

  Assign unique prefix using prefix delegation for each host or  configuring the router not to
  construct the IPv6 address using the advertised prefix in case the router advertises the prefix
  along with the ODAD may solve the problem completely, I think.


  Thanks,
  Syam

   
  On 5/3/07, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> wrote: 
    Syam, isn't it better to make it deterministic in p2p links where you have an authoritative address cache?

    --behcet

     
    ----- Original Message ----
    From: Syam Madanapalli < [e-mail]>
    To: Frank Xia <[e-mail]>
    Cc: 김상언 < [e-mail]>gt;; [e-mail]
    Sent: Wednesday, May 2, 2007 1:02:35 PM
    Subject: Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16


    Hi Frank,

    I understand the proposed END mechanism is more deterministic, however it comes at
    a cost: router modification and availability of authoritative address cache.

    And personally I do not like the RA as a response to DAD NS to tell the host that 
    the address is unique, and at NA cannot be used as it will not be interoperable with
    unmodified hosts which will treat that the address is duplicate.

    IEEE 802.16 based hosts would have the unique MAC address, so ODAD would
    work well I think.

    Thanks,
    Syam

     
    On 5/2/07, Frank Xia <[e-mail] > wrote: 
      Hi Syam

      END can work together with  Optimistic DAD, and some of the description in our draft is
      " If END and [OPTDAD] are enabled, the SS will benefit from both the
         reliability and time advantages.
      "

      Any way , there are some constraints for Optimistic DAD, 
      please refer to the words form RFC4429:
        * Optimistic DAD SHOULD only be used when the implementation is aware
              that the address is based on a most likely unique interface
              identifier (such as in [RFC2464]), generated randomly [RFC3041], 
              or by a well-distributed hash function [RFC3972] or assigned by
              Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) [RFC3315].
              Optimistic DAD SHOULD NOT be used for manually entered
              addresses."
       
      BR
      Frank
        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: Syam Madanapalli 
        To: Frank Xia 
        Cc: Daniel Park ; 김상언 ; [e-mail] 
        Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:22 PM
        Subject: Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16

         

        Hi Frank and Sangeon,

        How about using Optimistic DAD (RFC 4429) to minimize the delay?

        Thanks,
        Syam

         
        On 5/2/07, Frank Xia < [e-mail] > wrote: 
          Hi Deniel and Sangeon

          A  solution is proposed in the END draft and it applies to p2p link model as well.

          http://tools.ietf.org/wg/16ng/draft-xia-16ng-end-01.txt 

          Comments are welcomed.

          BR
          Frank




            ----- Original Message ----- 
            From: Daniel Park 
            To: '源�?곸뼵' ; [e-mail] 
            Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 6:39 PM
            Subject: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16

             
            [Trimming the list and subject]

            Sangeon, 

            IPv6 subnet model document was gone. Its status
            is in RFC Queue. If you have any concern regarding
            IPv6 DAD, it may take place in IPv6CS or EthernetCS
            document in my sense. Can you elaborate on your
            concern more specific ?

            -- Daniel Park




              From: 源�?곸뼵 [mailto:[e-mail]] 

              Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:14 PM 
              To: [e-mail] 
              Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
              Subject: Re: 16NG Digest, Vol 5, Issue 22


               
              Hi all,

              The one of the important thing in IEEE802.16 is missed.
              RFC 2462 specifies autoconfiguration in wired-based IPv6 Internet. It did not specify configuration time.
              To use RFC 2462 specfication in IEEE802.16e network, it is required faster procedure than current DAD procedure.
              Has anyone can tell the DAD processing time?

              If the IEEE 802.16 network will consume more than one seconds to handover at IP layer, Does it practical?

              So, I would like to propose to add some technical resolution for section 3.1.3 and 3.3.3.

              regards,

               
              2007/4/28, [e-mail] < [e-mail]>gt;: 
                Send 16NG mailing list submissions to
                       [e-mail]

                To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit 
                       https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng 
                or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
                       [e-mail] 

                You can reach the person managing the list at
                       [e-mail] 

                When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
                than "Re: Contents of 16NG digest..."


                Today's Topics:

                  1.  Document Action: 'Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for   802.16
                     based Networks' to Informational RFC  (The IESG)


                ----------------------------------------------------------------------

                Message: 1
                Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:30:34 -0400
                From: The IESG < [e-mail] >
                Subject: [16NG] Document Action: 'Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 
                       802.16 based Networks' to Informational RFC
                To: IETF-Announce < [e-mail] >
                Cc: Internet Architecture Board <[e-mail]>rg>,  16ng mailing list
                       < [e-mail]>gt;, 16ng chair < [e-mail]>gt;,       RFC Editor 
                       <[e-mail]>
                Message-ID: < [e-mail]>

                The IESG has approved the following document: 

                - 'Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks '
                  <draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-03.txt > as an Informational RFC

                This document is the product of the IP over IEEE 802.16 Networks Working
                Group.

                The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley.

                A URL of this Internet-Draft is: 
                http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-link-model-analysis-03.txt 

                Technical Summary

                This document provides different IPv6 link models that are suitable 
                for 802.16 based networks and provides analysis of various 
                considerations for each link model and the applicability of each link 
                model under different deployment scenarios.

                Working Group Summary

                This document is result of a Design Team that was formed 
                to analyze the IPv6 link models for 802.16 based networks.
                Based on the recommendations of the design team and this 
                document, the working group has chosen the unique-prefix-per-
                link/mn model over the previously assumed shared prefix 
                model. The new model is in use in the IPv6 over 802.16 IPCS
                document (draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs), and has also 
                been adopted by the Wimax Forum.

                Protocol Quality

                Jari Arkko has revied this document for the IESG. 

                Note to RFC Editor

                Please insert "IEEE" in front of references to 802.16
                or other IEEE specification numbers throughout the 
                document, including the title.

                Please expand "MS" to "MS (Mobile Station)" on first 
                occurence in Section 1. Similarly, expand "BS" to
                "BS (Base Station)". And later in the document, 
                "CS" to "CS (Convergence Sublayer)".

                Please expand "MLD" to "MLD (Multicast Listener 
                Discovery)" in Section 3.1.3.

                Please add the following informative reference: 

                  [WiMAXArch]
                             "WiMAX End-to-End Network Systems Architecture
                             http://www.wimaxforum.org/technology/documents"quot;,
                             August 2006.

                and refer to that from Section 1, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence.

                In Section 3.1, change "on per MS basis" to "on a per MS basis". 

                Also in Section 3.1, paragraph 1: change "does not any multicast"
                to "does not provide any multicast". And change "illustrates high"
                to "illustrate a". Finally, change "one more" to "one or more". 

                Change the section titles (3 instances) that say "Reuse of
                Existing Standards" to "Reuse of Existing Specifications".

                Replace the text in the Security Considerations section
                with the following: 

                   This document provides the analysis of various IPv6 link models for
                   IEEE 802.16 based networks and this document as such does not
                   introduce any new security threats. No matter what the link model
                   is, the networks employ the same link-layer security mechanisms
                   defined in [5]. However, the chosen link model affects the scope
                   of link local communication, and this may have security implications
                   for protocols that are designed to work within the link scope. This 
                   is the concern for shared link model compared other models wherein
                   private resources e.g. personal printer cannot be put onto a public
                   WiMAX network. This may restrict the usage of shared prefix model
                   to enterprise environments.

                   The Neighbor Discovery related security issues are document in [RFC

                   2461] [RFC 2462] and these are applicable for all the models
                   described in this documents. The model specific security 
                   considerations are documented in their respective protocol
                   specifications.

                Place a new top-level section between Sections 5 and 6:

                   X. Effect on Routing

                   The model used for in a 802.16 network may have a significant
                   impact on how routing protocols are run over such a network.
                   The deployment model presented in this document discusses the
                   least impacting model on routing as connectivity on the provider 
                   edge is intentionally limited to point to point connectivity
                   from one BS to any one of multiple MSs. Any other deployment
                   model may cause a significant impact on routing protocols,
                   however, but they are outside the scope of this document. 





                ------------------------------

                _______________________________________________
                16NG mailing list
                [e-mail]
                https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng


                End of 16NG Digest, Vol 5, Issue 22 
                ***********************************




              -- 
              ------------------------------------------------ 
              Sang-Eon Kim
              Senior Researcher
              Infra. Lab., KT
              139-791, Woomyeon-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul, Korea 

              Voice: [phone]
              Mobile: [phone]
              E-mail: [e-mail] 
              ------------------------------------------------ 


            _______________________________________________
            16NG mailing list
            [e-mail]
            https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng







          _______________________________________________
          16NG mailing list
          [e-mail] 
          https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng






    _______________________________________________
    16NG mailing list
    [e-mail]
    https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng

     




------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  16NG mailing list
  [e-mail]
  https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng

_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng