Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple
"Greg Daley" <gdaley@netstarnetworks.com> Fri, 17 July 2009 06:06 UTC
Return-Path: <gdaley@netstarnetworks.com>
X-Original-To: dna@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dna@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E902A3A6E25 for <dna@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.41
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.194, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RELAY_IS_203=0.994]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Us56gHR0Puxv for <dna@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:06:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.syd.netstarnetworks.com (mail.syd.netstarnetworks.com [203.8.7.220]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2563A6E12 for <dna@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:06:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sydmail.netstarnetworks.com ([10.18.193.13]) by mail.syd.netstarnetworks.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id n6H66QRs010439; Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:06:27 +1000
Received: from melmail.netstarnetworks.com ([10.20.193.13]) by sydmail.netstarnetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:06:16 +1000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA06A4.B2336D07"
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 16:06:16 +1000
Message-ID: <6983BF97BFC24D4EA551F140712329180119373E@melmail.netstarnetworks.com>
In-Reply-To: <BLU137-W82FF05D79447A0BD55C93931E0@phx.gbl>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple
Thread-Index: AcoGo1i3lbukH+0mRpWlNvslaTyQ6AAAMXCQ
References: <4A55E27D.80200@piuha.net> <BLU137-W109A872CE0057E72AD0EF93260@phx.gbl> <BLU137-W28F2FFB5232BC48619BF5E93210@phx.gbl> <4A5FABFE.2030209@ericsson.com> <BLU137-W82FF05D79447A0BD55C93931E0@phx.gbl>
From: Greg Daley <gdaley@netstarnetworks.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jul 2009 06:06:16.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[B2507160:01CA06A4]
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:58:29 -0700
Cc: dna@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dna-simple@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple
X-BeenThere: dna@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: DNA working group mailing list <dna.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna>, <mailto:dna-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dna>
List-Post: <mailto:dna@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dna-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dna>, <mailto:dna-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 06:06:08 -0000
Hi Bernard, Would it be possible to say that if DHCPv6 completes with a different value to DNA, it takes precedence so long as this does not override a SEND advertisement where DHCPv6 is unauthenticated? Greg Daley Security Consultant NetStar Australia Pty Ltd E-mail: gdaley@netstarnetworks.com Mobile: +61 401 772 770 Direct: +61 3 8532 4042 Fax: +61 3 8532 4032 ________________________________ From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, 17 July 2009 3:56 PM To: Suresh Krishnan Cc: Jari Arkko; draft-ietf-dna-simple@tools.ietf.org; dna@ietf.org Subject: RE: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple > It does not have any impact on when DHCPv6 messages are sent. Would you > like this text to be removed? All that needs to be said is that DHCPv6, if it is triggered, occurs in parallel, and that DNA does not imply any changes to the DHCPv6 protocol or state machine. It also would make sense to state that if DHCPv6 completes with a different result, that (as with RS) this takes precedence over DNA. > > [BA] Elsewhere the draft talks about stateless autoconfig and > > DHCPv6-assigned addresses, but not manual assignment. Is the intent of > > the document to suggest use of DNAv6 for configuration of manually > > assigned addresses? If so, then some of the caveats discussed in the > > DNAv4 document could apply. For example, NS probes don't need much if > > any retransmission because alternatives (RS, DHCPv6) are retransmitted. > > But if we are talking about manual assignment, then these alternate > > mechanisms may not help -- and NS probe retransmission can become more > > important. > > > I will try to add more text regarding manually configured addresses. OK. The DNAv4 draft talks a bit about manually configured addresses, but my understanding is that this functionality has not been implemented.
- [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Jari Arkko
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Bernard Aboba
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Jari Arkko
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Bernard Aboba
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Bernard Aboba
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Bernard Aboba
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Greg Daley
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Jari Arkko
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Jari Arkko
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Jari Arkko
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Bernard Aboba
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Bernard Aboba
- Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple Suresh Krishnan