Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16

["Syam Madanapalli" <[e-mail]>]

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]>om>; [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 <[e-mail]>
> > *To:* Frank Xia <[e-mail]>
> > *Cc:* Daniel Park <[e-mail]> ; 김상언<[e-mail]>om>;
> > [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
> > > <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/16ng/draft-xia-16ng-end-01.txt+>
> > >
> > > Comments are welcomed.
> > >
> > > BR
> > > Frank
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Daniel Park <[e-mail]>
> > > *To:* '源�?곸뼵' <[e-mail]> ; [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