Hi James, sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you on this.
On 2005-05-26, James Kempf wrote:
>
> In this case, the ability to use "Optimistic" greatly reduces handover
> latency, and there doesn't seem to be an issue with routing through the
> router because the RA provides the link addres
Hi James,
James Kempf wrote:
[cut]
Actually, I wonder if what is needed is more of an applicability
statement saying what types of addresses it is appropriate to use this
procedure for, and where not. For example, can optimistic DAD be used
for the LL address? It took me some thinking to decid
> > > Likewise, an Optimistic node can still inject IP packets into the
> > > Internet that will in effect be "spoofed" packets appearing to come
> > > from the legitimate node. In some cases, those packets may lead to
> > > errors or other operational problems, though one would expect that
> Well, this brings up the reason why I asked for clarification.
I need to spend some time getting back up to speed with DNA, as that
work is complimentary piece of this puzzle. Let me defer responding to
your point until later.
> > Likewise, an Optimistic node can still inject IP packets into t
Thomas,
> Somewhat different. From an implementation perspective, one needs
> access to information (e.g., whether the router's link-layer address
> is in the cache) at a place in the implementation where that
> information is not necessarily readily availbale.
>
> But, looking back over the docum
> To be more specific, if I understand your concern correctly, the problem is
> that the host is required by this to send packets to the router at a time
> when it does not have the router's link address?
Somewhat different. From an implementation perspective, one needs
access to information (e.g.
Thomas,
> > > I've reviewed this document and on the whole think it's fine for PS.
> > >
> > > But I do have one general concern. This document requires that an
> > > implementation do what in practice, I think might be "difficult" for
> > > some implementations. While that is OK at one level, I
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> >* Nodes implementing Optimistic DAD SHOULD additionally
> implement
> > Secure Neighbor Discovery [SEND].
>
> This seems like gratuitous recommendation. This either requires
> justification, or removal. (I'd think the latter.)
=> Agreed. I think it shoul
> >* Nodes implementing Optimistic DAD SHOULD additionally
> implement
> > Secure Neighbor Discovery [SEND].
>
> This seems like gratuitous recommendation. This either requires
> justification, or removal. (I'd think the latter.)
=> Agreed. I think it should be removed as it's
