Re: [dna] AD review of draft-ietf-dna-simple

["Greg Daley" <[e-mail]>]

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: [e-mail]
Mobile: [phone]
Direct: [phone]
Fax:    [phone] 

 


________________________________

	From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:[e-mail]] 
	Sent: Friday, 17 July 2009 3:56 PM
	To: Suresh Krishnan
	Cc: Jari Arkko; [e-mail];
[e-mail]
	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.