[dhcwg] AD Review Comments On: draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-09.txt

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Sun, 20 March 2005 14:13 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18394 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:13:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DD1GZ-0006Ae-W2 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:18:56 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DD1Bc-0008BU-S7; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:13:48 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DD1Ba-00088t-Dv for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:13:46 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA18389 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:13:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [] (helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DD1GR-0006AM-AC for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:18:48 -0500
Received: from [] (account margaret HELO []) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 311553; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:11:05 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06200742be632e0a96e8@[]>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:13:04 -0500
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7baded97d9887f7a0c7e8a33c2e3ea1b
Cc: Mark Townsley <townsley@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] AD Review Comments On: draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-09.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69

Hi Bernard,

I have two questions about draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-09.txt that I 
would like to discuss before I send this document to IETF LC.

(1) Could you explain why sending an ARP request to the default 
gateway(s) of the MLPA (as described in section 2.2)  is a better 
mechanism to confirm what IPv4 configuration parameters should be 
used than re-initiating DHCPv4 and/or attempting to renew the DHCPv4 
lease (as described in section 2.3)?

The only text in the document that might explain this seems to be:

    In contrast to a DHCP exchange, which may be between a DHCP client
    and an off-link DHCP server, the reachability test is designed to
    verify bi-directional connectivity to the default gateway(s) on the

But, I'm not sure why this is better than using DHCP and/or how this 
compensates for the possibility that the mechanisms described in this 
document may result in a two step process:  an ARP exchange (with a 
200ms timeout) followed by a DHCP exchange.  Has there been some 
analysis and/or empirical testing that shows that this mechanism 
produces superior results?

(2) Is it assumed that the host would not send any non-DNA-related 
IPv4 traffic using its presumed address on the MPLA during the 
reachability test and address acquisition phases?  If so, would it 
make sense to state that restriction here?  Do you expect that 
packets would be queued until the address status is resolved?  Or 
that upper layers would receive errors consistent with an interface 
that has not addresses configured?


dhcwg mailing list