Subject: [dna] #19: Discuss issues with manually assigned addresses

From: "dna issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:10:40 -0000

#19: Discuss issues with manually assigned addresses
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  Suresh Krishnan
     Type:  defect                        |      Status:  new            
 Priority:  major                         |   Milestone:                 
Component:  simple                        |     Version:                 
 Severity:  Active WG Document            |    Keywords:                 
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 The document should describe issues with manually assigned addresses and
 recommend against using them.

 Submitter: Bernard Aboba

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dna/trac/ticket/19>
dna <http://tools.ietf.org/dna/>

---

From: "dna issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:24:55 -0000

#19: Discuss issues with manually assigned addresses
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |        Owner:  Suresh Krishnan
     Type:  defect                        |       Status:  closed         
 Priority:  major                         |    Milestone:                 
Component:  simple                        |      Version:                 
 Severity:  Active WG Document            |   Resolution:  fixed          
 Keywords:                                |  
------------------------------------------+---------------------------------
Changes (by [email-masked]):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 The following text will be added to an appendix.

 Appendix A.  Issues with confirming manually assigned addresses

    Even though DNAv4 [RFC4436] supports verification of manually
    assigned addresses this feature of DNAv4 has not been widely
    implemented or used.  There are two major issues that come up with
    confirming manually assigned addresses using Simple DNA.

    o  When DHCPv6 or SLAAC addresses are used for probing, there is no
       need to aggressively retransmit lost probes.  This is because the
       address configuration falls back to vanilla DHCPv6 or SLAAC and
       the host will eventually obtain an address.  This is not the case
       with manually assigned addresses.  If the probes are lost, the
       host runs the risk of ending up with no addresses at all.  Hence
       agressive retransmissions are mandated.

    o  Another issue comes up when the host moves between two networks,
       one where manual addressing is being used (say NET1)and the other
       where dynamic addressing (DHCPv6) is being used (say NET2).  When
       the host moves to NET1 from NET2 it tries to confirm both the
       manual address and the dynamic address in parallel.  If the probe
       for the manually assigned address is lost, the DHCPv6 probe will
       succeed and the host will incorrectly end up using the DHCPv6
       assigned address (from NET2) on NET1.

    Given these issues, it is NOT RECOMMENDED to use manual addressing
    with Simple DNA.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dna/trac/ticket/19#comment:1>
dna <http://tools.ietf.org/dna/>