Re: [16NG] DAD in IEEE802.16

[Frank Xia <[e-mail]>]

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: '김상언' ; [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: 김상언 [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]>rg>: 
      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]>rg>, 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