Subject: [16ng] For your comments: "Duplicate Address Detection Optimization Using Enhanced Neighbor"

From: xia yangsong <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 11:42:52 -0500

Hi all,
  
   I have submitted the draft as follow,
   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-xia-16ng-end-00.txt.

   Please review. 
   Your comments will be appreciated.

Best Regards
Frank

---

From: JinHyeock Choi <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:25:13 +0900

Dear Frank and Behcet

I finally went over the eND draft and here are my belated comments.

I think it is useful to explicitly notify a host the uniqueness of an
address in case there is a reliable and trustworthy omniscient entity,
whether a router or a server, which knows all the address currently in
use on a link. Then DAD can be performed without multicast. Also it
can be done more quickly.

However I have a few concerns on the draft.

First, I understand that a router indicate the address uniqueness by
sending an RA with P bit. But it will be difficult to secure a bit 
in RA message format for this purpose. As you may know in DNA discussion, 
there hardly left a bit in reserved filed of RA.

Second, it's not clear how that RA can carry the address whose
uniqueness it guarantees.

In the RA message, there is no field to carry Target address.

Also I assume that the (DAD probe) NA has
- unspecified source address,
- solicited node multicast destination address,
- tentative address as Targent Address
- NO source link-layer address.

So the router doesn't know the host's link-layer address and can't
send the RA to the host in unicast.

Third, in Sec 4.4., I wish the draft describes how the host behave
upon receiving an RA in more detail. I have difficulty understanding
the operation.

I wish the above helps.

Thanks for your kind consideration.

Best Regards

JinHyeock
_______________________________________________
16ng mailing list
[email-masked]
http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/16ng