From dna-owner@webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au Thu Nov 01 15:41:06 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Infub-0006fc-Qb for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:41:06 -0400 Received: from stan.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.165]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1InfuQ-0007Wz-II for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:41:02 -0400 Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.82]) by stan.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JQU00F5HENQKGF0@stan.its.monash.edu.au> for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:40:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9600480003; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:40:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au [130.194.5.143]) by larry.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768CE3C00F; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:40:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) id lA1JbVS25552 for dna-list; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:37:31 +1100 Received: from kenny.its.monash.edu.au (kenny.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.13.164]) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id lA1JbUF25548 for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:37:30 +1100 Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by kenny.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) id <0JQU00301BKJP200@kenny.its.monash.edu.au> (original mail from suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com) for dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au (ORCPT dna@eng.monash.edu.au); Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:37:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by kenny.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JQU00HNCEI8U0E0@kenny.its.monash.edu.au> for dna@eng.monash.edu.au; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:37:21 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 510) id 57F97AB542; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:37:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by moe.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69EB44FB06 for ; Fri, 02 Nov 2007 06:37:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA1JbEvp031237; Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:37:15 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.53]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:37:14 -0500 Received: from [142.133.10.140] ([142.133.10.140]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:37:14 -0500 Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:38:04 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan Subject: [DNA] Reclassification of DNA Protocol and new Simple DNA protocol Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au To: Dna Cc: Jari Arkko , Greg Daley Message-id: <472A2B1C.8030903@ericsson.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2007 19:37:14.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[9A787A50:01C81CBE] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Hi Folks, The responses we received to the mail titled "Reality Check - Implementer Feedback" indicated that there is interest in developing a simple solution while retaining the work we did on the complete solution. Hence we propose the following course of action * Reclassify draft-ietf-dna-protocol-06 to EXPERIMENTAL and simplify it by removing a few of the steps there. * Separate the TSLLAO into a new document * Commence work on a new simple solution. Greg and I have written a small document to start up this effort. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dna/draft-krishnan-dna-simple-00.txt Please let us know what you think about this course of action. Thanks Suresh & Greg From dna-owner@webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au Mon Nov 05 09:20:15 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip2oJ-00044t-N7 for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:20:15 -0500 Received: from stan.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.165]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip2oH-0007uQ-TU for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:20:15 -0500 Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.87]) by stan.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR100B2YEHNZYB0@stan.its.monash.edu.au> for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:20:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B3A5AB543; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:20:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au [130.194.5.143]) by curly.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0AE4FB0B; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:20:09 +1100 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) id lA5EGFI16492 for dna-list; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:16:15 +1100 Received: from kenny.its.monash.edu.au (kenny.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.13.164]) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id lA5EGEF16488 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:16:14 +1100 Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by kenny.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) id <0JR100701E9H3400@kenny.its.monash.edu.au> (original mail from jari.arkko@piuha.net) for dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au (ORCPT dna@eng.monash.edu.au); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:16:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by kenny.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR100M0XEAQTXA0@kenny.its.monash.edu.au> for dna@eng.monash.edu.au; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:16:04 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 510) id 251FBAB542; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:16:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp.piuha.net (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by moe.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 875664FB09 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:16:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from smtp.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 980151986C6; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:15:57 +0200 (EET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400::130]) by smtp.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4110919867C; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:15:57 +0200 (EET) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:15:57 +0200 From: Jari Arkko Subject: [DNA] Re: Reclassification of DNA Protocol and new Simple DNA protocol In-reply-to: <472A2B1C.8030903@ericsson.com> Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au To: Suresh Krishnan Cc: Dna , Greg Daley Message-id: <472F259D.5000303@piuha.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP References: <472A2B1C.8030903@ericsson.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071022) X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 I'd like to first see the simple solution as an RFC, and then we can talk about Exp publications of the other results. I did not see overwhelming support for doing both on the list, so my suggestion would be to poll for this again once the first document is an RFC. Then we will also get a more realistic measure of what kind of energy is available for the other RFCs. And I would like to emphasize that getting progress on the simple solution in a timely manner is extremely important. I would like to see document reviews, revisions, discussion, and a timely submission of the draft to the IESG. Jari From dna-owner@webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au Mon Nov 05 10:57:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip4Kn-0008Q0-4C for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:57:53 -0500 Received: from cartman.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.166]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip4Kl-0001mG-Mu for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:57:53 -0500 Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by cartman.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR100KG6J0D6TO0@cartman.its.monash.edu.au> for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:57:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 40CFCAB543; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:57:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au [130.194.5.143]) by moe.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E06E4FB08; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:57:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) id lA5Ft4h17001 for dna-list; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:55:04 +1100 Received: from kyle.its.monash.edu.au (kyle.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.13.163]) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id lA5Ft3F16997 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:55:04 +1100 Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by kyle.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) id <0JR100601BFR8U00@kyle.its.monash.edu.au> (original mail from suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com) for dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au (ORCPT dna@eng.monash.edu.au); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:54:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by kyle.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR10018OIVGQM50@kyle.its.monash.edu.au> for dna@eng.monash.edu.au; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:54:54 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 510) id EBEE0AB542; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:54:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by moe.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B444FB05 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:54:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA5Ft2oS014704; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:55:03 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.56]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:54:46 -0600 Received: from [142.133.10.140] ([142.133.10.140]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:54:45 -0600 Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:55:40 -0500 From: Suresh Krishnan Subject: [DNA] Re: Reclassification of DNA Protocol and new Simple DNA protocol In-reply-to: <472F259D.5000303@piuha.net> Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au To: Jari Arkko Cc: Dna , Greg Daley Message-id: <472F3CFC.7020709@ericsson.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) References: <472A2B1C.8030903@ericsson.com> <472F259D.5000303@piuha.net> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2007 15:54:45.0875 (UTC) FILETIME=[2FF5D430:01C81FC4] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a Hi Jari, Thanks for the comments. I agree with you as well. I will be submitting a new version of the simple DNA that addresses few of the concerns raised with version -00. Thanks Suresh Jari Arkko wrote: > I'd like to first see the simple solution as an RFC, and then > we can talk about Exp publications of the other results. > > I did not see overwhelming support for doing both on the > list, so my suggestion would be to poll for this again > once the first document is an RFC. Then we will also get > a more realistic measure of what kind of energy is > available for the other RFCs. > > And I would like to emphasize that getting progress > on the simple solution in a timely manner is extremely > important. I would like to see document reviews, revisions, > discussion, and a timely submission of the draft to the > IESG. > > Jari > From dna-owner@webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au Mon Nov 05 11:20:53 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip4h3-0001xj-1g for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:20:53 -0500 Received: from kyle.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.163]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ip4h1-0002In-BY for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 11:20:53 -0500 Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.82]) by kyle.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR1001J5K2LQK50@kyle.its.monash.edu.au> for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:20:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C80A280008; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:20:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au [130.194.5.143]) by larry.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B0403C008; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:20:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) id lA5GIVj17158 for dna-list; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:18:31 +1100 Received: from cartman.its.monash.edu.au (cartman.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.13.166]) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id lA5GIUF17154 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:18:30 +1100 Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.82]) by cartman.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) id <0JR100001HQHF400@cartman.its.monash.edu.au> (original mail from bernard_aboba@hotmail.com) for dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au (ORCPT dna@eng.monash.edu.au); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:18:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.82]) by cartman.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR100KVTJYK6TO0@cartman.its.monash.edu.au> for dna@eng.monash.edu.au; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:18:20 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 510) id 92C9680003; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:18:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from bay0-omc2-s35.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc2-s35.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.171]) by larry.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39EAB3C004 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 03:18:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([207.46.8.108]) by bay0-omc2-s35.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:17:44 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:17:44 -0800 Received: from 207.46.8.123 by by117fd.bay117.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:17:41 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 08:17:41 -0800 From: Bernard Aboba Subject: RE: [DNA] Re: Reclassification of DNA Protocol and new Simple DNA protocol In-reply-to: <472F3CFC.7020709@ericsson.com> X-Originating-IP: [71.197.208.131] Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au X-Sender: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com To: dna@eng.monash.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2007 16:17:44.0888 (UTC) FILETIME=[65EA8380:01C81FC7] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64 With respect to the simple solution, I think there are some basic requirements that it needs to meet. These are summarized in RFC 4436 Section 1.1 (paraphrased to fit DNAv6): o DNAv6 is a performance optimization. Its purpose is to speed up a process that may require as much as a few hundred milliseconds (DHCPv6), as well as to reduce multi- second conflict detection delays when a host changes networks. o As a performance optimization, it must not sacrifice correctness. In other words, false positives are not acceptable. DNAv6 must not conclude that a host has returned to a previously visited link where it has an operable IP address if this is not in fact the case. o As a performance optimization, false negatives are acceptable. It is not an absolute requirement that this optimization correctly recognize a previously visited link in all possible cases. This is acceptable as long as the host still operates correctly as it did without DNAv6, just without the performance benefit. o As a performance optimization, where DNAv6 fails to provide a benefit, it should add little or no delay compared to today's RS/RA and DHCPv6 processing. In practice, this implies that this processing needs to proceed in parallel. Waiting for DNAv6 to fail before beginning RS/RA and DHCPv6 processing can greatly increase total processing time, the opposite of the desired effect. o Trials are inexpensive. Assuming that DNAv6 performs its checks using small unicast packets (NS/ND), the cost of an unsuccessful attempt is small, whereas the cost of a missed opportunity (having the right address available as a candidate and choosing not to try it for some reason) is large. As a result, the best strategy is often to try all available candidate configurations, rather than try to determine which candidates, if any, may be correct for this link, based on heuristics or hints. For a heuristic to offer the prospect of being a potentially useful way to eliminate inappropriate configurations from the candidate list, that heuristic has to (a) be fast and inexpensive to compute, as compared to sending a small unicast packet, and (b) have high probability of not falsely eliminating a candidate configuration that could be found to be the correct one. Today, I do not believe that either the "simple solution" or the "advanced solution" meet these requirements. > Thanks for the comments. I agree with you as well. I will be submitting >a new version of the simple DNA that addresses few of the concerns raised >with version -00. From dna-owner@webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au Mon Nov 05 17:35:40 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpAXk-0001jk-23 for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:35:40 -0500 Received: from stan.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.165]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpAXi-0005t9-8e for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:35:40 -0500 Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.82]) by stan.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR2008UM1F9F360@stan.its.monash.edu.au> for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:35:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 76BB780003; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:35:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au [130.194.5.143]) by larry.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id B19A03C003; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:35:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) id lA5MWLG18753 for dna-list; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:32:21 +1100 Received: from cartman.its.monash.edu.au (cartman.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.13.166]) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id lA5MWLF18749 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:32:21 +1100 Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by cartman.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) id <0JR100801V2OYT00@cartman.its.monash.edu.au> (original mail from suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com) for dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au (ORCPT dna@eng.monash.edu.au); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:32:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by cartman.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR2009030REP460@cartman.its.monash.edu.au> for dna@eng.monash.edu.au; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:21:14 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 510) id B43E4AB542; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:21:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by moe.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE99B4FB07 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:21:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA5ML8G6024964; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:21:08 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.53]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:21:08 -0600 Received: from [142.133.10.140] ([142.133.10.140]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 05 Nov 2007 16:21:07 -0600 Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:22:02 -0500 From: Suresh Krishnan Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Reclassification of DNA Protocol and new Simple DNA protocol In-reply-to: Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au To: Bernard Aboba Cc: dna@eng.monash.edu.au Message-id: <472F978A.4080600@ericsson.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) References: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Nov 2007 22:21:07.0982 (UTC) FILETIME=[2992A2E0:01C81FFA] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0fa76816851382eb71b0a882ccdc29ac Hi Bernard, Thanks for the comments. Please see my responses inline for simple dna. Bernard Aboba wrote: > With respect to the simple solution, I think there are some basic > requirements that it needs to meet. These are summarized in RFC 4436 > Section 1.1 (paraphrased to fit DNAv6): > > o DNAv6 is a performance optimization. Its purpose is to speed > up a process that may require as much as a few hundred > milliseconds (DHCPv6), as well as to reduce multi- > second conflict detection delays when a host changes networks. I agree. > > o As a performance optimization, it must not sacrifice > correctness. In other words, false positives are not > acceptable. DNAv6 must not conclude that a host has returned > to a previously visited link where it has an operable IP > address if this is not in fact the case. Simple DNA will not produce false positives unless two routers on two different links happen to have the same link local address and MAC address. Is this a likely scenario that needs to be addressed? > > o As a performance optimization, false negatives are acceptable. > It is not an absolute requirement that this optimization > correctly recognize a previously visited link in all possible > cases. This is acceptable as long as the > host still operates correctly as it did without DNAv6, just > without the performance benefit. I think Simple DNA works as quick as RFC4861 in the worst case (false negative) scenarios. > > o As a performance optimization, where DNAv6 fails to provide a > benefit, it should add little or no delay compared to today's > RS/RA and DHCPv6 processing. In practice, this implies that this > processing needs to proceed in parallel. Waiting for DNAv6 to > fail before beginning RS/RA and DHCPv6 processing can greatly > increase > total processing time, the opposite of the desired effect. This is why we send the RS and the NSs in parallel as you suggested. This ensures that the simple DNA procedure does not run slower than just using RSs. > > o Trials are inexpensive. Assuming that DNAv6 performs its > checks using small unicast packets (NS/ND), the > cost of an unsuccessful attempt is small, whereas the cost of a > missed opportunity (having the right address available as a > candidate and choosing not to try it for some reason) is large. > As a result, the best strategy is often to try all available > candidate configurations, rather than try to determine which > candidates, if any, may be correct for this link, based on > heuristics or hints. For a heuristic to offer the prospect of > being a potentially useful way to eliminate inappropriate > configurations from the candidate list, that heuristic has to > (a) be fast and inexpensive to compute, as compared to sending > a small unicast packet, and (b) have high probability of not > falsely eliminating a candidate configuration that could be > found to be the correct one. The heuristic in use for simple dna is to store and use the previous 'n' link configurations. Thus it satisfies (a). It we use a sufficiently large value of 'n' we can ensure that (b) is met. We recommend n to be 2 but if you think that the number is too low we can increase it. Thanks Suresh From dna-owner@webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au Mon Nov 05 20:07:11 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpCuN-0000TJ-Pp for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:07:11 -0500 Received: from stan.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.165]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpCuI-0001NP-Nt for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:07:11 -0500 Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.87]) by stan.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR20089U8FRF3I0@stan.its.monash.edu.au> for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:07:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 653CAAB543; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:07:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au [130.194.5.143]) by curly.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0972C4FB07; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:07:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) id lA6144n19416 for dna-list; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:04:04 +1100 Received: from stan.its.monash.edu.au (stan.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.13.165]) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id lA6144F19412 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:04:04 +1100 Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.87]) by stan.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) id <0JR200C0125VSH00@stan.its.monash.edu.au> (original mail from bernard_aboba@hotmail.com) for dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au (ORCPT dna@eng.monash.edu.au); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:03:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.87]) by stan.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR2008148AHF3I0@stan.its.monash.edu.au> for dna@eng.monash.edu.au; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:03:54 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 510) id 45EB1AB542; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:03:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from bay0-omc3-s8.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc3-s8.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.208]) by curly.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209274FB02 for ; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 12:03:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([207.46.8.117]) by bay0-omc3-s8.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:03:51 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:03:50 -0800 Received: from 207.46.8.123 by by117fd.bay117.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:03:49 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:03:49 -0800 From: Bernard Aboba Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Reclassification of DNA Protocol and new Simple DNA protocol In-reply-to: <472F978A.4080600@ericsson.com> X-Originating-IP: [131.107.0.73] Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au X-Sender: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Cc: dna@eng.monash.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 01:03:50.0717 (UTC) FILETIME=[E49DC6D0:01C82010] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 39bd8f8cbb76cae18b7e23f7cf6b2b9f >> o As a performance optimization, it must not sacrifice >> correctness. In other words, false positives are not >> acceptable. DNAv6 must not conclude that a host has returned >> to a previously visited link where it has an operable IP >> address if this is not in fact the case. > >Simple DNA will not produce false positives unless two routers on two >different links happen to have the same link local address and MAC address. >Is this a likely scenario that needs to be addressed? The combination of same link local address *and* MAC address is unlikely, assuming that the MAC address is globally unique. However, not all link layers will have a globally unique MAC address, so that there may be a need to restrict applicability to those that do. >I think Simple DNA works as quick as RFC4861 in the worst case (false >negative) scenarios. >This is why we send the RS and the NSs in parallel as you suggested. This >ensures that the simple DNA procedure does not run slower than just using >RSs. Right. >The heuristic in use for simple dna is to store and use the previous 'n' >link configurations. Thus it satisfies (a). It we use a sufficiently large >value of 'n' we can ensure that (b) is met. We recommend n to be 2 but if >you think that the number is too low we can increase it. A previous link configuration should only be tried if it is still corresponds to a valid address. Otherwise, confirming presence of the corresponding router could result in installation of a configuration which is no longer valid, which would create a false positive. In practice this will restrict the DNAv6 traffic substantially so I'm not clear that it is necessary to recommend a value of "n". From dna-owner@webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au Tue Nov 06 10:15:01 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpQ8r-0001ZZ-4f for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:15:01 -0500 Received: from kenny.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.164]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpQ8n-0006kC-Ht for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:15:01 -0500 Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.82]) by kenny.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR300ETTBOVZVE0@kenny.its.monash.edu.au> for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:14:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9C66780005; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:14:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au [130.194.5.143]) by larry.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FF983C00B; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:14:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) id lA6FB8K22829 for dna-list; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:11:08 +1100 Received: from cartman.its.monash.edu.au (cartman.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.13.166]) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id lA6FB8F22825 for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:11:08 +1100 Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.87]) by cartman.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) id <0JR300I015VZ5D00@cartman.its.monash.edu.au> (original mail from suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com) for dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au (ORCPT dna@eng.monash.edu.au); Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:10:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from curly.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.87]) by cartman.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR300LA3BI67R20@cartman.its.monash.edu.au> for dna@eng.monash.edu.au; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:10:58 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 510) id 20E44AB544; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:10:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from imr2.ericy.com (imr2.ericy.com [198.24.6.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by curly.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B35B4FB0A for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 02:10:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lA6FApZ7009352; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:10:51 -0600 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.50]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:10:50 -0600 Received: from [142.133.10.140] ([142.133.10.140]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 09:10:50 -0600 Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:11:45 -0500 From: Suresh Krishnan Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Reclassification of DNA Protocol and new Simple DNA protocol In-reply-to: Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au To: Bernard Aboba Cc: dna@eng.monash.edu.au Message-id: <47308431.9070508@ericsson.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) References: User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 15:10:50.0495 (UTC) FILETIME=[379080F0:01C82087] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Hi Bernard, Please see my responses inline Bernard Aboba wrote: > The combination of same link local address *and* MAC address is > unlikely, assuming that the MAC address is globally unique. However, > not all link layers will have a globally unique MAC address, so that > there may be a need to restrict applicability to those that do. I will add some text in the assumptions and mention the pitfalls if this does not hold true. > >> The heuristic in use for simple dna is to store and use the previous >> 'n' link configurations. Thus it satisfies (a). It we use a >> sufficiently large value of 'n' we can ensure that (b) is met. We >> recommend n to be 2 but if you think that the number is too low we can >> increase it. > > A previous link configuration should only be tried if it is still > corresponds to a valid address. Otherwise, confirming presence of the > corresponding router could result in installation of a configuration > which is no longer valid, which would create a false positive. In > practice this will restrict the DNAv6 traffic substantially so I'm not > clear that it is necessary to recommend a value of "n". The following text in Section 3.4 already sets this as a restriction "If the addresses obtained from a previous router are no longer valid, the host SHOULD NOT send a Neighbour Solicitation to that router." Does this convey what you want or Would you like some stronger text? Thanks Suresh From dna-owner@webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au Tue Nov 06 13:14:39 2007 Return-path: Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpSwh-0005dx-Cf for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:14:39 -0500 Received: from kenny.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.164]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IpSwc-000384-W9 for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 13:14:39 -0500 Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.88]) by kenny.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR300FEVK0200J0@kenny.its.monash.edu.au> for dna-archive@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:14:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from moe.its.monash.edu.au (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 45395AB544; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:14:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au [130.194.5.143]) by moe.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id C931C4FB08; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:14:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) id lA6IBcc23743 for dna-list; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:11:38 +1100 Received: from cartman.its.monash.edu.au (cartman.its.monash.edu.au [130.194.13.166]) by webcamserver.eng.monash.edu.au (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id lA6IBbF23739 for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:11:37 +1100 Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.82]) by cartman.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) id <0JR300101EIBKE00@cartman.its.monash.edu.au> (original mail from bernard_aboba@hotmail.com) for dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au (ORCPT dna@eng.monash.edu.au); Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:11:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from larry.its.monash.edu.au ([130.194.13.82]) by cartman.its.monash.edu.au (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.03 (built Sep 22 2005)) with ESMTP id <0JR300LDIJV17RB0@cartman.its.monash.edu.au> for dna@eng.monash.edu.au; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:11:27 +1100 (EST) Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 510) id 3BF7D80003; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:11:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from bay0-omc1-s32.bay0.hotmail.com (bay0-omc1-s32.bay0.hotmail.com [65.54.246.104]) by larry.its.monash.edu.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 921803C012 for ; Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:11:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com ([207.46.8.109]) by bay0-omc1-s32.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:11:22 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:11:22 -0800 Received: from 207.46.8.123 by by117fd.bay117.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:11:21 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 10:11:21 -0800 From: Bernard Aboba Subject: Re: [DNA] Re: Reclassification of DNA Protocol and new Simple DNA protocol In-reply-to: <47308431.9070508@ericsson.com> X-Originating-IP: [71.197.208.131] Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au X-Sender: bernard_aboba@hotmail.com To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Cc: dna@eng.monash.edu.au Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com] X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Nov 2007 18:11:22.0856 (UTC) FILETIME=[70279E80:01C820A0] X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 >"If the addresses obtained from a previous router are no longer valid, the >host SHOULD NOT send a Neighbour Solicitation to that router." > >Does this convey what you want or Would you like some stronger text? The SHOULD does not explain what implementations need to do. The host can't just use the address (since it's no longer valid) even if the router is confirmed. So either there is no point in sending the NS, or some special procedure needs to be invoked (e.g. waiting for RA confirmation, or immediately invoking DHCPv6 if that is how the address was obtained).