Subject: An API question from Samita

From: Pekka Nikander <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:25:36 +0100

Following the discussion last week at Minneapolis,
Samita Chakrabarti wants to ask the working group
the following question:

   draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-02.txt already has a mechanism
   to choose CGA and NON-CGA source addresses by the application using
   socket api.  The SEND wg needs to decide whether such API is needed
   for applications running on a SEND-node.  Please send the decision on
   this to the IPv6 wg alias - based on that we will update the address
   selection API draft (which actually goes along with RFC3484).

Please send your replies to the mailing list.  The chairs
will summarize and post the summary also to the ipv6 mailing
list.

--Pekka Nikander

--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send email with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the
body to <[email-masked]>.
Archive: http://standards.ericsson.net/lists/ietf-send/maillist.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:35:01 +0100

> will summarize and post the summary also to the ipv6 mailing

As this API is now defined, it allows a SeND nodes to be configured with both 
CGA and non-CGA addresses (and source address selection always prefer a CGA 
over a non-CGA), but with the possibility for debugging tools to avoid the 
penalty incurred by CGA signature and validation by reversing the sense of 
this preference.

The first examples coming to my mind are those of an administrator wanting to 
flood the network by:
o ping ff02::1, or fping (parallel ping) while there's a huge number of 
on-link nodes.
o spray (or flood) the network with UDP packets.

OTOH, there's nod doubt that the same effect (avoid CGA signature and 
validation) can be achieved through a future dedicated API. But as the source 
address selection API draft is almost ready, mentions CGA without creating 
apparent conflicts, I think it's worth keeping CGA in it.

What do folks thinks?

Thanks,
--
julien

---

From: Julien Laganier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:45:50 +0100

What do folks thinks?

Thanks,
--
julien