Re: [16NG] ARP over IEEE 802.16 IPvCS (was 16NG] 68-IETF minutes)

Did you mean producing ARP response within the device?
Which I think is fine, but the best is not to send ARP at all.

Thanks,
Syam

On 5/9/07, Bernard Aboba <bernarda@windows.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  I think that the issue is resolved by enabling a unicast ARP response to
> be synthesized in response to a unicast ARP request (e.g. NUD).  Of
> course, it is also necessary to respond to broadcast ARPs as well.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samita Chakrabarti [mailto:Samita.Chakrabarti@AzaireNet.com<Samita.Chakrabarti@AzaireNet.com>
> ]
> Sent: Tue 5/8/2007 6:59 PM
> To: Syam Madanapalli; 16ng@ietf.org
> Cc: Bernard Aboba; Dave Thaler
> Subject: RE: [16NG] ARP over IEEE 802.16 IPvCS (was 16NG] 68-IETF minutes)
>
> Hi ,
>
>
>
> I also am not clear on the issues with ARP comments in IPv4CS  document
> as Syam mentioned below.
>
>
>
> Can someone please clarify ? Please see in-line.
>
>
>
> From 16ng minutes:
>
> ....
>
> Bernard Aboba: if Ethernet exposes an Ethernet interface then DNA
> triggered.
> then DHCP, so ARP is sent, then you figure out what to do
> Bernard Aboba: problem dropping ARPs - you wont get an address if you do
>
> that, because in DNA you don't dhcp. no connectivity if dropping the
> arp.
> In any operating system you'll have no address
>
> [SC>]
>
> Is the concern with DNAv4 running on a mobile node ? I assume the node
> tries to do autoconf with IPv4 link-local address  by sending a unicast
> packet to the default router and for that it needs to ARP for the MAC
> address of the router?
>
> Is the concern on dropping ARP on the receiver side or not being able to
> send an ARP at all or both?
>
>
> Dave Thaler: respond to any MAC address, sounds as if what you're
> proposing,
> manufcature ARP response... ARP goes on wire
> Bernard Aboba: not get DHCP but get (MAC) address
>
> [SC>]
>
> Can DNA of a mobile get a hint from the link layer that it is now in
> Wimax (802.16e) link and then it should try to get its address assigned
> according to the Wimax network (DHCP)? (Assuming the node has moved from
> Wifi to Wimax network, for example).  The DHCP address is assigned
> usually by the ASN network.  So if the concern is in initial IP-address
> allocation, that might be handled by Wimax network.  But, if there is no
> address resolution, then how does a node send a packet to its logical
> neighboring node ? It looks like the ASN-GW or default-router in the
> network or some central body needs to do the mapping between an
> IP-address to CID of  the destination node.  Thus ARP request could be
> directly sent to the default GW which will act as a proxy and send back
> a reply with a CID of the corresponding IP-address(assuming the default
> gw has a cache of all nodes attached to it).  The model is similar to
> what is described in:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chakrabarti-6lowpan-ipv6-nd-03
> .txt
>
>
>
> Comments?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Samita
> ....
>
>
> These minutes are recorded for the presentation of  the ID
>
> draft-madanapalli-16ng-over-802-dot-16-ipcs-00
>
>
>
> I did not understand these comments, especially Ethernet in the IPv4CS
> context,
>
> Sorry I was not present at the meeting.
>
>
>
> The proposal is:
>
> As IP is run directly over 802.16 in case of IPv4 and destination MAC
> address is
>
> not required for sending the frames, there is no need for ARP.
>
> Also, ARP frame does not has a IP header, so IPv4CS cannot map these
> onto
>
> any CID.
>
>
>
> Or did I miss something?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Syam
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
> Date: Apr 17, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: [16NG] 68-IETF minutes
> To: "16ng@ietf.org" <16ng@ietf.org>
>
> Can be found at:
> http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07mar/minutes/16ng.txt
>
> Let me know if you see any bugs in there.
>
> -- Daniel Park
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 16NG mailing list
> 16NG@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>
>
>
>