Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16

[Frank Xia <[e-mail]>]

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 ; ±è»ó¾ð ; [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: '김?ì–¸' ; [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: 김?ì–¸ [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