Hello Teco,
Is it possible that the SMF usage is not vulnerable to
the pitfalls noted in the intarea draft? Usually we
don't picture NAT boxes in the MANET routing paths...
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/30/2011 5:01 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
Hi Joe,
The current text in intarea-ipv4-id-update is "no current deployments
are known". I read this as a statement in general. Then, it is not correct.
I am fine with discouragement of usage of systems that use IP_ID for DPD,
but such systems are around.
Teco
Op 30 mrt 2011, om 13:46 heeft Joe Touch het volgende geschreven:
Hi, Teco,
On 3/30/2011 4:29 AM, Teco Boot wrote:
Sorry for x-posting. But there is a conflict in:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-manet-smf
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update
SMF has a duplicate packet detection function based on the IPv4
ID field. So text in ietf-intarea-ipv4-id-update section 4
is not correct, in that there would be no deployments for such.
SMF is experimental. When we talk about deployments of duplicate detection,
we're focused on standards-based systems.
Note that ipv4-id-update is standards-track.
That said, SMF deployment with IPv4 DPD on IP-ID would be limited.
What to do?
IMO, recommend H-DPD and change the discussion to explain why the ID shouldn't
be used for DPD (the text is basically already there - it mentions the idea,
but then explains that it's not likely to work anyway).
Use of the IP ID for this purpose is problematic for a variety of reasons,
which is why ipv4-id-update deprecates use of that field for that purpose.
Joe
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
