Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6Best Current Practices for hosts

draft-ietf-dna-hosts-01.txt

Sathya Narayanan

Greg Daley

Nicolas Montavont

Issues

• Erik’s comments:– Re-structuring suggestion– Link change vs same link– Reachability detection– Unnecessary information

• Comments from Subba Reddy incorporated. (00 to 01)

Restructuring

• Current draft has one section on DNA steps– Making using of prior information– DAD– Link Identification (Same vs change)– MLD – Reachability detection

Link change vs same link

• Suggestion: We just need mechanism to detect link change (CPL is recommended for it).

• De we need the ‘same link’ section?– I think Yes.– How the node can quickly confirm that it is on

the same link?

Reachability detection

• Last email on this subject:– “A couple of words describing that ND handles this or

a caveat about bad links may be sufficient”.

– I interpreted this to mean a sub-section is alright.

• Current draft– If a node wants

– A table about reachability implication for different RS/RA and NS/NA exchanges

– Mention packet loss.

Other sections (Unnecessary information?)

• Hints (Reduced to make it more succinct)– To initiate change detection

• IP hosts configuration– Configuration that should be invalidated when

link change happens.

• Complications to DNA

• Security considerations ;-)