Dear Pascal， Many Thanks for your review comment ! Please see the reply below and the attached draft revision version.
Best Regards, Jun Bi Comments from Pascal Thubert I agree with Lorenzo, this scheme is at a high level what we can find in commercial products, and I have first-hand experience on that. As an informational document, this RFC could be a useful reference to consider if we were to change the protocols in a way that would impact those existing and non-standard snooping behaviors. Snooping has proven to be very useful, but as one may guess, it is not reliable; it may miss packets, may fail to create bindings, may point on an incorrect location as well. So I’d say that if we publish as RFC, we should also indicate that with draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd, we (will) have a more robust solution for devices that are willing to announce themselves. Reply: Thank you for your comment. Regarding reliability issues of snooping in our case like DAD packet loss, please see responses to Lorenzo above. While draft-ietf-6lo-ap-nd proposes a security solution for low-power and lossy network (LLN), we focus on WLAN networks in this draft. WLAN network is much more stable than LLN. And with solutions proposed for handling DAD message loss, the draft gives a mechanisms that is robust enough for source address validation in WLAN networks. Also, the proposed solution doesn’t affect existing protocols nor does it require any modifications to existing protocols.
draft-bi-savi-wlan-16(1).txt
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
