Hi James, Amazing Brian Haley and I were just talking this a.m. as this concerns our worrk to. We like what you and Optimistic DAD propose but we also are responsible for these "wired" boxes. That is what we concluded too. We can't see a case where an 802.11b AP is just another interface to a wired-link but will be its own link. So I think that is a good idea. And will avoid the entire problem I sent and to Nick privately on the Optimistic DAD (which I think adds great value to the FastRA reqs too).
thanks /jim [Have you ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day] > -----Original Message----- > From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@;docomolabs-usa.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 12:39 PM > To: Bound, Jim; Thomas Narten > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Changing RS Reply Timing for Mobile IPv6 > > > Hi Jim, > > I hear your concerns quite clearly. > > One possibility would be to make the FastRA and Optimistic > DAD work specific to MIPv6 wireless access routers, and > therefore not a general IPv6 router enhancement. I think this > would address your concern about impacting current wired > router product plans. It really is only for mobility, as a > wired host rarely to never changes its link. > > That would move the work to the MIP group, as a separate but > complementary item to the current FMIPv6 work. The optimized > MIPv6 work is still not quite ready for prime time, but it is > getting there. Of course, this would require approval of the > ADs, MIP WG chairs, and MIP WG. > > How does that sound? > > jak > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "James Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Thomas Narten" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 7:39 AM > Subject: RE: Changing RS Reply Timing for Mobile IPv6 > > > > James, > > > > ........................................Determination of > > how this router is designated is outside the scope of this > > document. An RA that is immediately unicast to the sender rather > > than delayed is known as a "fast RA". > > > > I do not believe it should be outside the scope of this draft. I > > think it imperative that this be defined clearly and a > method proposed > > before FAST RA can be bought into by IPv6 implementors. > > > > I also believe at this time the IESG should require a > fairly good set > > of reports from multiple implementations of this and other > proposals > > for wireless efforts that want to change DAD parameters and extend > > attributes to ND and Stateless Addrconf. Right now the only work > > within this space that has received the test of fire at > UNH, ETSI, or > > TAHI as examples is MIPv6. These tests beat hard on IPv6 > > implementation enhancements as was just done for MIPv6 D-18 > in Sophia > > Antipolis at ETSI. I would suggest to the IESG doing any > changes to > > ND or Addrconf without serious hard core testing from this work is > > dangerous. > > > > If you, I, and others believe this is important then the > code will get > > done for this and Optimistic DAD and show up at the tests. > Otherwise > > this is purely a research and at best AD exercise. IPv6 is > now being > > deployed we cannot mess with DAD or Addr Conf in casual > ways any more > > than we do with IP (for v4), TCP, or RTT algrorithm for TCP as > > examples. > > > > I also believe all these efforts should begin to think like > MIPv6 has > > and that is they are separate documents and I strongly am > against any > > enhancments to ND or Addrconf from Fast RA, Optimistic DAD > etc. They > > should be new RFCs. > > > > All this also presents new security problems too that does > not exist > > in current ND and Addrconf on wired links. The base reason is that > > these mess with the ND architecture and wired links that are > > firewalled or PKI protected are more insulated than say > 802.11b. That > > being said I would like to see all security sections for this work > > define what new security problems exist simply because of this > > behavior not just say exists now in DAD or whatever. > > > > None of these options should be permitted for wire links > (status quo) > > at all. That gives me an idea at least how the router to do Fast RA > > should be defined. > > > > I would also like to see hard core router or switch "PRODUCT" > > developers comment on this work and other work. I know > routing code > > but not like those that build ASICs and the like. I would > like to hear > > them say the pain and gain they feel or see from this strategy. > > > > /jim > > [Have you ever seen the rain coming down on a sunny day] > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
