Subject: Updates to Neighbor Discovery and Stateless Autoconfiguration

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:01:06 -0400

All,
     One of our charter items is to produce updates of
RFC 2461 and 2462 in order to progress them to Draft Standard.
As a part of that effort, I would like to bring to the Work
Group's attention, some work that has been done in SEND.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-send-psreq-03.txt
outlines several security issues that exist in NDP and in
Stateless Autonconfiguration.  So as a part of the effort to
revise 2461 and 2462, I am soliciting the WG's thoughts on how
to incorporate the work done in the SEND document into the
base specifications.  My primary goal is to come to a balance
of existing functionality vs. enhanced security capability.

So, I encourage people to read the document and comment on
their applicability to the pending updates.

Regards,
Brian

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:24:54 +0300 (EEST)

> of existing functionality vs. enhanced security capability.

The SEND work is not the only thing which has proposed (or uncovered a 
potential need for) modifications ini RFC2461/2462.  Some requests have 
surfaced already in the Mobile IP space as well.

I'd encourage you to go through the archives.  There has been a
significant amount of discussion on many ambiguous pieces of the spec
(e.g. dead code in RFC2462 section 5.5.3 e, ambiguities about decrementing
the Lifetime counters, etc.).  I'd hope that someone (e.g.  one of the
original authors) would have archived the relevant threads for later
perusal.

In addition, draft-roy-v6ops-v6onbydefault-01.txt (will be updated soon to 
v6ops WG document) has identified a set of serious problems with the 
"on-link by default" rule.  Expect a companion document describing the 
tradeoffs of changing RFC2461/2 in this regard shortly.

Hope this helps to get into the swing..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:17:12 -0400

> surfaced already in the Mobile IP space as well.

Agreed.  My point was more to make the WG aware of the issues raised
in the SEND document.  The issues raised in other places (e.g. MIPv6)
are just as important.

> tradeoffs of changing RFC2461/2 in this regard shortly.

Great.  I will look for its publication.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:16:12 -0700

> in the SEND document.  The issues raised in other places (e.g. MIPv6)

Perhaps it would be helpful if the MIP WG would come up with a draft that
collected the issues in one place. I know some of them were discussed in the
DNA BOF, but were they specifically related to RFC 2461/2 rather than being
generic for IP movement detection?

            jak

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:10:30 +0900

IPv6 DAD Optimization is being discussed in DNA.

IPv6 DAD Optimization Goals and Requirements
http://home.megapass.co.kr/~natpp00/dad-optimization.txt

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of James Kempf
> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 1:16 AM
> To: Brian Haberman; Pekka Savola
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Updates to Neighbor Discovery and Stateless 
> Autoconfiguration
> 
>