Subject: further responses for comments at the mic in 6man for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-02.txt

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:51:58 -0600

Folks,

Thanks for the comments at the mic.  Here is the closure.

1.	Lee Howard - am not sure if the two examples presented (and
listed in the doc) are different examples showing two different problems
or two example showing the same problem.
		
		Both examples relate to reflected DAD probes received by
an interface on a router. However the problem space is different.  One
is a network Loopback test and the other is the setup in a home with two
broadband modems in served by the same SP.  The Cisco CMTS actually hit
this problem already in a CMTS IPv6 deployment.  I can talk to Lee and
see what text to edit to clarify.
		
2.	Stuart - can we do without the nonce for catching reflected DAD
probes?  
		
		I talked to Stuart after the presentation and Stuart
understands why we need the nonce.  A reflected DAD probe or a DAD probe
sent by a genuine duplicate node are identical and the nonce separates
the two cases.
		
3.	Suresh - comments on the "Changes to RFC 4862" titled slide in
the presentation.  The text needs work for router vs. ...

	I already replied during the presentation the router in the text
is a router as specified in RFC 4861 vs. a host defined in the same
document.  Please suggest what change we can make to the text in the
document.  The text from section 4.5 is shown below.
		
   [4.5.  Changes to RFC 4862

   The following text is added to [RFC4862] at a yet to be determined
   location in [RFC4862].

   A router that supports IPv6 DAD MUST implement the detection of
   looped back NS messages during DAD operation as specified in this
   document.  A network interface on any other IPv6 node that is not a
   router SHOULD implement the detection of looped back NS messages
   during DAD operation as specified in this document.]

Thanks,

Hemant

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 23:56:29 -0600

Suresh,

Here is proposed change to text in section 4.5 of 

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-02.txt

Old text:

New text:

A router as specified in [I-D.ietf-6man-node-req-bis] that supports IPv6
DAD MUST implement the detection 

Thanks,

Hemant

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 1:52 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: further responses for comments at the mic in 6man
fordraft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-02.txt

I already replied during the presentation the router in the text is a
router as specified in RFC 4861 vs. a host defined in the same document.
Please suggest what change we can make to the text in the document.  The
text from section 4.5 is shown below.

   location in [RFC4862].

Thanks,

Hemant