Subject: FYI: New ID submission- GRP

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 20:23:21 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.

                 Title  : The Gateway Response Protocol (GRP) for Networks 
Using
                      Zero Configuration IPv4 Addresses
                 Author(s)               : S. Giacalone
                 Filename                : draft-giacalone-grp-00.txt
                 Pages           : 10
                 Date                    : 16-Feb-01
 
This memo defines a simple mechanism, termed gateway response
protocol (GRP), which permits hosts using Zero Configuration IPv4
Addresses [1] to find and use a default gateway, thereby gaining
access to outside networks, including the Internet. GRP is fully
compliant with rules limiting Zero Configuration addresses to local
networks and does not negate source/destination address assumptions.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-giacalone-grp-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
                 "get draft-giacalone-grp-00.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
                 [email-masked].
In the body type:
                 "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-giacalone-grp-00.txt".

Spencer Giacalone, Predictive Systems
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing so much prevents our being natural 
as the desire to seem so" -Francois, Duc de 
La Rochefoucauld

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 21:18:36 -0500

It appears to me you've reinvented router discovery protocol. See RFC
1256. Router discovery has been around for quite some time, and works
fine. Why do you want to reinvent this mechanism? Your suggested
approach is completely tied to the 169.254/16 address block, and doesn't
provide any advantage over a protocol already understood by hosts and
routers.

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Senie                                        [email-masked]
Amaranth Networks Inc.                    http://www.amaranth.com

---

From: "Bernard Aboba" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 23:58:33 -0800

And it also begs the question of why a host with a linklocal
address should be able to "reach the Internet". Isn't the whole
idea of linklocal addressing to avoid forwarding off link??

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
Behalf Of Daniel Senie
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 6:19 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: FYI: New ID submission- GRP

---

From: Daniel Senie <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 09:38:18 -0500

> idea of linklocal addressing to avoid forwarding off link??

It also raises some questions about security. If you're building a
device that'll stay in the zeroconf address range all its life, you
might have been able to use fewer layers of security, thinking that
there'd be no interaction with the outside world. If a NAT box is now
going to interact, though, you might have to contend with incoming
connections arriving through mapping on the NAT box. While being strong
and defensive is worthwhile anyway, it does seem this proposal changes
some of the basic assumptions.

These should be carefully considered, and are certainly items which
would need to be covered in the required "Security Considerations"
section of a draft such as this one.