further responses for comments at the mic in 6man for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-02.txt

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Mon, 14 November 2011 05:52 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
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 14E0E11E81E6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:52:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.145
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.453, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 tPZ87qKi+YlB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:52:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A130311E81E4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:52:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=11567; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1321249923; x=1322459523; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:from:to:cc; bh=cHVZjD6dBa9otJXn1pYiq0yPc4YwZvP9cjXzYWgAiNE=; b=WrjgBtW+wqRGu84Bwv/Z6CN5KKrjI+4zuUx/SzojBXxmZu+WqActxEjx zvKlVzsScEihpAbUp9rob0wdTCf6ilYCVQ8fOsy/UX8FhRERboIJ/WinI h0G/LLAIBhQ0NySqssj/7fOpkRdRzLus7s08dKF7NFiAlsFUhavooFzzh I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAHmrwE6tJXHB/2dsb2JhbABCqX2BBYF0AQQSAQkRA0kSASoGGAdXAQQbGqElAZ1EiRxjBIgQkWKMVA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.69,506,1315180800"; d="scan'208,217"; a="35609595"
Received: from rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com ([173.37.113.193]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Nov 2011 05:52:03 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core2-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pAE5q3JI026929; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:52:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:52:03 -0600
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_01CCA291.8849E8FE"
Subject: further responses for comments at the mic in 6man for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-02.txt
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:51:58 -0600
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303494B7C@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: further responses for comments at the mic in 6man for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-02.txt
Thread-Index: AcyikYXqCmkayE20RKKfY9DN+0mBxw==
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2011 05:52:03.0032 (UTC) FILETIME=[88766580:01CCA291]
Cc: cheshire@apple.com
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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:52:06 -0000

Folks,

Thanks for the comments at the mic.  Here is the closure.

1.	Lee Howard - am not sure if the two examples presented (and
listed in the doc) are different examples showing two different problems
or two example showing the same problem.
		
		Both examples relate to reflected DAD probes received by
an interface on a router. However the problem space is different.  One
is a network Loopback test and the other is the setup in a home with two
broadband modems in served by the same SP.  The Cisco CMTS actually hit
this problem already in a CMTS IPv6 deployment.  I can talk to Lee and
see what text to edit to clarify.
		
2.	Stuart - can we do without the nonce for catching reflected DAD
probes?  
		
		I talked to Stuart after the presentation and Stuart
understands why we need the nonce.  A reflected DAD probe or a DAD probe
sent by a genuine duplicate node are identical and the nonce separates
the two cases.
		
3.	Suresh - comments on the "Changes to RFC 4862" titled slide in
the presentation.  The text needs work for router vs. ...

	I already replied during the presentation the router in the text
is a router as specified in RFC 4861 vs. a host defined in the same
document.  Please suggest what change we can make to the text in the
document.  The text from section 4.5 is shown below.
		
   [4.5.  Changes to RFC 4862

   The following text is added to [RFC4862] at a yet to be determined
   location in [RFC4862].

   A router that supports IPv6 DAD MUST implement the detection of
   looped back NS messages during DAD operation as specified in this
   document.  A network interface on any other IPv6 node that is not a
   router SHOULD implement the detection of looped back NS messages
   during DAD operation as specified in this document.]

Thanks,

Hemant