Re: I-D ACTION:draft-hoon-mobileip-undad-00.txt
Greg Daley <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:16:39 +1000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mobileip |
|---|---|
| Organization | Monash University |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Jaehoon, jaehoon.kim wrote: > Hi, Greg > > Thanks a lot for your interest in our draft. > > I have a question about following sentence. > >>The ping ff02::1 won't work. >>Existing hosts don't have to respond to the message. > > > FF02::1 is already reserved in RFC. Yes. > And futhermore, I could not find that some host may not respond to ff02::1 > in any RFC due to firewall. > Let me know reliable reference. Page 13, RFC-2463. Third paragraph. "...An Echo Reply SHOULD be sent in response to an Echo Request message sent to an IPv6 multicast address." SHOULD is not mandatory like MUST (as per RFC 2119). It is approximately equal to RECOMMENDED. Firewalling is just one reason not to send the response. If the response was mandatory, firewalling (for example) would not be applicable, and the response would always be received. I haven't seen any system which requires responses from all hosts (or all groups of hosts) on a link except for MLD Queries. > I usally used ff02::1 or ff02::2 in our lab and ETSI test event. > I just have been confused in what you mentioned. The issue is that if a node refuses to respond to ICMP echo requests, then it will not be in your list of hosts if you have not received unicast packets from it recently. This means you may allocate the address to another, not knowing that it is already is present on the link. I think that's what DAD was trying to avoid. The way your system works now, the router may incorrectly allocate an address to a new device (because its state was incomplete). The router may respond first (This is likely to because the router response is configured for speed and the host which owns the address may be powersaving). In this case, both devices have the address configured as non-tentative when the DAD defense comes (up to a second later). The alternative of keeping the addresses on the configuring host tentative is already defined in draft-moore-ipv6-optimistic-dad-03.txt. This requires no state server. I'll try to get a draft of MLD-DAD back onto the server for comparison, so that I can illustrate some of the issues in state maintenance. Greg