Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-07.txt

Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au> Fri, 12 April 2013 23:01 UTC

Return-Path: <kauer@biplane.com.au>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C8F21F8EB7 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dcLTKspCEXNJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:2:7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A7321F8E9E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:01:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApMBAGeRaFGWZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANQ4M8RMEggSKDEwEBAQSBCQsYLlcZiBupJZM5jx4WgysDiEuPWIpXiDY
Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.202]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2013 08:31:06 +0930
Message-ID: <1365807664.3293.250.camel@karl>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-07.txt
From: Karl Auer <kauer@biplane.com.au>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 09:01:04 +1000
In-Reply-To: <51681182.9000303@innovationslab.net>
References: <20130409174845.2651.57733.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1365545491.28058.311.camel@karl> <51681182.9000303@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 23:01:10 -0000

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 09:52 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > Coming late to this but - DAD NS frames are sent to solicited node
> > multicast addresses, so how is the first hop router seeing them?
> > What am I missing?
> 
> The proxy would have to maintain a list of nodes being proxied.  In that 
> case, the proxy can join the solicited-node multicast address for those 
> nodes.

I'm still missing something then. How does the BNG build the list? I
just re-read the draft and can see no mechanisms mentioned except
snooping on DAD (which won't work except unless the proxy is already
listening on the relevant SNMA) and unsolicited NAs. Nor is there any
statement in the draft (for example in the "data structures" section,
4.1) that the proxy should join any solicited node multicast groups.
Solicited node multicast addresses are mentioned in only two places: In
section 3.1, which describes DAD in a misleadingly rather vague way
under the circumstances (DAD packets go to "other nodes on the same
link"), and in section 4.2.2 only in a negative sense (a case where a
packet "other than a solicited Neighbor Advertisement" is received).

Apologies if I'm missing something really obvious. Humbly asking for
enlightenment :-)

Regards, K.


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au)
http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
http://twitter.com/kauer389

GPG fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
Old fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017