Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16

[Frank Xia <[e-mail]>]

Hi Syam

please see my inline comments.


BR
Frank

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Syam Madanapalli 
  To: Frank Xia 
  Cc: Daniel Park ; 김상언 ; [e-mail] 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 1:02 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.
  Frank=>AR in 802.16 networks has an authoritative address cache, especially in P-to-P link model.

  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.

  Frank => END is an Enhancement of ND. So it can be interoperable with unmodified hosts. 
  Unmodified hosts just ignor the option carried by RA (NOT NA).
  It is full compatible with RFC2461.

  IEEE 802.16 based hosts would have the unique MAC address, so ODAD would
  work well I think.
  Frank=>Some IPv6 address formulation is not related to MAC address.
  It is not reasonable to bind IPv6 address with MAC address.

  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