[dhcwg] AD Review Comments On: draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-09.txt

[Margaret Wasserman <margaret at thingmagic.com>]

Hi Bernard,

I have two questions about draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-09.txt that I 
would like to discuss before I send this document to IETF LC.

(1) Could you explain why sending an ARP request to the default 
gateway(s) of the MLPA (as described in section 2.2)  is a better 
mechanism to confirm what IPv4 configuration parameters should be 
used than re-initiating DHCPv4 and/or attempting to renew the DHCPv4 
lease (as described in section 2.3)?

The only text in the document that might explain this seems to be:

   In contrast to a DHCP exchange, which may be between a DHCP client
   and an off-link DHCP server, the reachability test is designed to
   verify bi-directional connectivity to the default gateway(s) on the
   MLPA.

But, I'm not sure why this is better than using DHCP and/or how this 
compensates for the possibility that the mechanisms described in this 
document may result in a two step process:  an ARP exchange (with a 
200ms timeout) followed by a DHCP exchange.  Has there been some 
analysis and/or empirical testing that shows that this mechanism 
produces superior results?

(2) Is it assumed that the host would not send any non-DNA-related 
IPv4 traffic using its presumed address on the MPLA during the 
reachability test and address acquisition phases?  If so, would it 
make sense to state that restriction here?  Do you expect that 
packets would be queued until the address status is resolved?  Or 
that upper layers would receive errors consistent with an interface 
that has not addresses configured?

Thanks,
Margaret





_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg