Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-13.txt

From: Bernard Aboba <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:00:01 -0700 (PDT)

With respect to Issue 1:

I agree with Stuart that link layer hints may not be very useful. If
the host attempts verification of multiple MLNs, then it is likely to be
less sensitive to bad hints, and more likely to figure things out without
any hints at all.  This should be pointed out.

I also agree with Stuart that an implementation could choose to
do both DHCP and DNAv4. This will be useful in circumstances where
the router may have gone down, or doesn't respond for some reason.
We should clarify this.

With respect to Issue 2:

As Stuart points out, there is no reason why an implementation can't
attempt to verify multiple MLN candidates. We should clarify that it is
ok for the implementation to do that. Assuming that the number of MLNs
chosen is reasonable, I don't think it's necessary to rate limit.

With respect to Issue 3:

I echo John's concern about changing the meaning of ARP Probe as advocated
in the ACD document.  From what I can tell, existing routers do not implement
the behavior specified in the ACD document, and I would be concerned about
new security vulnerabilities that could be introduced by requiring them to do
so.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg