Hello Brian,
Thank you for the email. Please see below some comments.
Le 23/10/2012 14:19, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
I realised while reading this draft that I just don't understand
its operating model. It refers to the "requesting" router supplying
Prefix Collection and Prefix Information to the delegating router:
When requesting prefixes a requesting router MUST add for each
requested prefix a Prefix Information in the Prefix Delegation option
of the RS message.
However, by definition the requesting router doesn't know what prefix(es)
it will be given. So surely all it can ask for is N unspecified prefixes
of given lengths?
Right, this may be wrong.
I checked the document and it misses, I think, something important. The
first and most naïve request of a prefix by a Requesting Router should
have all bits zero and maybe the prefix length 0, or around 64.
Would this be ok?
It also says:
PC_ID: An unique identifier of the Prefix Collection. The
PC_ID MUST be unique among all PC_ID known by the
requesting router.
How can the requesting router provide this in its REQ message? By guessing?
I think the PC_ID is generated by the requesting router (not by the
delegating router), just as with IA_ID, no?
11. Security Considerations
TBD
OK, but since a vehicular network is open to any one of millions of
unmanaged devices, this will need to be *very* convincing, especially
in preventing DOS.
I agree. We currently try to understand these threats, and especially
how they are specific to ND, to prefix delegation and to new flags we add.
We may add more threat descritpion in the next versions of the draft.
Alex
Regards
Brian Carpenter
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
