[16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16
Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com> Tue, 01 May 2007 23:40 UTC
Return-path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1Hj1wv-0002x4-Nr; Tue, 01 May 2007 19:40:01 -0400
Received: from 16ng by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1Hj1wu-0002uK-5v
for 16ng-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 19:40:00 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj1wq-0002mw-55
for 16ng@ietf.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 19:39:56 -0400
Received: from mailout2.samsung.com ([203.254.224.25])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hj1wn-0000zn-29
for 16ng@ietf.org; Tue, 01 May 2007 19:39:56 -0400
Received: from epmmp1 (mailout2.samsung.com [203.254.224.25])
by mailout2.samsung.com
(iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004))
with ESMTP id <0JHD005BSZ2F68@mailout2.samsung.com> for 16ng@ietf.org;
Wed, 02 May 2007 08:39:51 +0900 (KST)
Received: from daniel ([168.219.198.109])
by mmp1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14
2004))
with ESMTPA id <0JHD005FMZ2E2S@mmp1.samsung.com> for 16ng@ietf.org; Wed,
02 May 2007 08:39:51 +0900 (KST)
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 08:39:50 +0900
From: Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>
In-reply-to: <7d5d1f6f0704300713t16b7171es2f7426b88c786ff3@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?ks_c_5601-1987?B?J7Hou/O+8Cc=?= <kim.sangeon@gmail.com>, 16ng@ietf.org
Message-id: <0JHD005FOZ2E2S@mmp1.samsung.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
Thread-index: AceLMdU0GDeAIgTVRjyXrxO7iy1AywBF7g7w
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b6435b1bfa5977f2eb96dc7e52434b6d
Cc:
Subject: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>,
<mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>,
<mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1386657380=="
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
[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: 김상언 [mailto:kim.sangeon@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:14 PM To: 16ng@ietf.org Cc: iab@iab.org; 16ng-chairs@tools.ietf.org 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, 16ng-request@ietf.org <16ng-request@ietf.org>rg>: Send 16NG mailing list submissions to 16ng@ietf.org 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 16ng-request@ietf.org You can reach the person managing the list at 16ng-owner@ietf.org 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 <iesg-secretary@ietf.org <mailto:iesg-secretary@ietf.org> > Subject: [16NG] Document Action: 'Analysis of IPv6 Link Models for 802.16 based Networks' to Informational RFC To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org <mailto:ietf-announce@ietf.org> > Cc: Internet Architecture Board <iab@iab.org>rg>, 16ng mailing list <16ng@ietf.org>rg>, 16ng chair < <mailto:16ng-chairs@tools.ietf.org> 16ng-chairs@tools.ietf.org>gt;, RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Message-ID: < <mailto:E1HhSP4-00025w-LX@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> E1HhSP4- 00025w-LX@stiedprstage1.ietf.org> 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 16NG@ietf.org 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: +82-2-526-6117 Mobile: +82-10-3073-4084 E-mail: Kim.SangEon@gmail.com <mailto:Kim.SangEon@gmail.com> ------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
- [16NG] Re: 16NG Digest, Vol 5, Issue 22 김상언
- [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16 Daniel Park
- Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16 Frank Xia
- Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16 Syam Madanapalli
- Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16 Frank Xia
- Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16 Syam Madanapalli
- Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16 Frank Xia