|
Hi Karen,
Please find my points inline:- section 6.6 >" > The tunnel protocol must allow for the assignment of at least one > globally routable (/128) IPv6 unicast address to use for tunneled > IPv6 connectivity over the link provided by the Zero-Configuration > Tunneling mechanism. >" >=> not very clear about the meaning of this paragraph. i guess it means that tunnel protocol gets a >global IPv6 address before establishing a tunnel link for IPv6 connectivity. am i right? >[Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)] - The intended meaning of the paragraph is to say: >"The tunnel protocol must allow for the assignment of at least one > globally routable (/128) IPv6 unicast address to the end-hosts, which the >end-hosts can use for IPv6 communication through the zero-configuration tunnels." >Is that clearer ? => Fairly yes. The meaning is
end-host is going to get a IPv6 global address through the established
tunnel.
>section 6.8 >=> does NUD (in section 3.8 in RFC 2893) helps? or does it help NOT having it for sake of saving Radio power? >[Karen E. Nielsen (AH/TED)] NUD should be OK Radio power wise. The reason NUD is not explicitly >referred to in Section 6.8, but unicast NS/NA exchanges are, is that by NUD one tends to understand the >full mechanism described in Section 7.3 of RFC 2461, and this requires link-local multicast support - >which we do not explicitly assume/require. Further there may be issues with NUD if it is required to be >performed by the tunnel servers, as NUD on routers is susceptible to DoS attacks. =>Thats why i stated section
3.8 in RFC 2893. Cant we make it that explicit?
I am trying to see if we can
make zeroconf fall in-line with whats stated in RFC 2893 which is about
"Transition Mechanisms for IPv6 hosts and Routers".
Thanks Radhakrishnan
|