Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-shim6-applicability-01.txt

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Brian,

El 14/06/2006, a las 16:35, Brian E Carpenter escribió:

> marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Marcelo,
>
> ...
> > So, bottom line is what a HBA/CGA dhcp extension would be useful for 
> > and what scenarios/use cases are there for this?
>
> I think it gets pretty hard when you include CGA in the problem. I'm
> concerned about a site of medium size that wants to manage its
> nodes proactively and therefore wants to use DHCPv6, but also wants
> to profit from shim6, with the level of security offered by
> HBA. That seems like a real scenario to me.

ok, thanks for the feedback,
i will see if i can write a draft with this...


> > > > 5.3.  Shim6 and SCTP
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >    ...It is
> > > >    recommended that Shim6 is not used for SCTP sessions, and that 
> > > > path
> > > >    maintenance is provided solely by SCTP.
> > >
> > >
> > > What is the mechanism, i.e. how does SCTP tell shim6 to do nothing?
> > well, i think we discussed about this and my understanding was that 
> > there was no need for an explicit notification by the sctp to the 
> > shim (this is implementations specific proabbaly...)
> > That it would be possible for the shim layer to simply not create any 
> > context for sctp sockets. In order to do that, the shim6 layer need 
> > to have access to the socket information (which i think is 
> > implementation specific)
> > Besides, it would also be possible to define a DONOT_SHIM socket 
> > option, but this would require update to use such mechanism
>
> I think you need to say this in the draft. You are assuming that
> a stack that supports SCTP "knows" when a socket is for SCTP, and that
> needs to be confirmed. If not, a socket option seems the only way,
> and IMHO we should say so.

ok, we will include some text about this in the next version

thanks,

marcelo


>    Brian