| < draft-ietf-dna-goals-03.txt | draft-ietf-dna-goals-04.txt > | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNA WG JinHyeock Choi | DNA WG JinHyeock Choi | |||
| Internet-Draft Samsung AIT | Internet-Draft Samsung AIT | |||
| Expires: April 13, 2005 Greg Daley | Expires: June 17, 2005 Greg Daley | |||
| CTIE Monash University | CTIE Monash University | |||
| October 13, 2004 | December 17, 2004 | |||
| Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Goals | Goals of Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 | |||
| draft-ietf-dna-goals-03.txt | draft-ietf-dna-goals-04.txt | |||
| Status of this Memo | Status of this Memo | |||
| By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable | By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable | |||
| patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, | patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, | |||
| and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with | and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with | |||
| RFC 3668. | RFC 3668. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶ | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. | |||
| The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at | |||
| http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on April 13, 2005. | This Internet-Draft will expire on June 17, 2005. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. | Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| At the time a host establishes a new link-layer connection, it may or | At the time a host establishes a new link-layer connection, it may or | |||
| may not have a valid IP configuration for Internet connectivity. The | may not have a valid IP configuration for Internet connectivity. The | |||
| host may check for link change, i.e. determine whether a link change | host may check for link change, i.e. determine whether a link change | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 22 ¶ | |||
| 2.2 Link identity detection with a single RA . . . . . . . . . 5 | 2.2 Link identity detection with a single RA . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 2.3 Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 2.3 Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 3. Goals for Detecting Network Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3. Goals for Detecting Network Attachment . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 3.1 Goals list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 3.1 Goals list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | |||
| 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 6. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 6. Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 15 | Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| When a host has established a new link-layer connection, it can send | When a host has established a new link-layer connection, it can send | |||
| and receive some IPv6 packets at the link, particularly those used | and receive some IPv6 packets on the link, including those used for | |||
| for configuration. On the other hand, the host has full Internet | configuration. On the other hand, the host has Internet connectivity | |||
| connectivity only when it is able to exchange packets with arbitrary | only when it is able to exchange packets with off-link destinations. | |||
| destinations. | ||||
| When a link-layer connection is established or re-established, the | When a link-layer connection is established or re-established, the | |||
| host may not know whether its existing IP configuration is still | host may not know whether its existing IP configuration is still | |||
| valid for Internet connectivity. A subnet change might have occurred | valid for Internet connectivity. A subnet change might have occurred | |||
| when the host changed its attachment point. | when the host changed its attachment point. | |||
| In practice, the host doesn't know which of its addresses are valid | In practice, the host doesn't know which of its addresses are valid | |||
| on the newly attached link. The host knows neither if its existing | on the newly attached link. It also doesn't know whether its | |||
| default router is on this link, nor whether its neighbor cache | existing default router is on this link nor if its neighbor cache | |||
| entries are valid. Correct configuration of each of these components | entries are valid. Correct configuration of each of these components | |||
| are necessary in order to send packets on and off the link. | is necessary in order to send packets on and off the link. | |||
| To examine the status of the existing configuration, a host may check | To examine the status of the existing configuration, a host may check | |||
| whether a 'link change' has occurred. The term 'link' used in this | whether a 'link change' has occurred. The term 'link' used in this | |||
| document is as defined in RFC 2461 [1]. The notion 'link' is not | document is as defined in RFC 2461 [1]. The notion 'link' is not | |||
| identical with the notion 'subnet' as defined in RFC 3753 [3]. For | identical with the notion 'subnet' as defined in RFC 3753 [2]. For | |||
| example, there may be more than one subnets on a link and a host | example, there may be more than one subnet on a link and a host | |||
| connected to a link may be part of one or more of the subnets on the | connected to a link may be part of one or more of the subnets on the | |||
| link. | link. | |||
| Today, a link change necessitates an IP configuration change. | Today, a link change necessitates an IP configuration change. | |||
| Whenever a host detects that it has remained at the same link, it can | Whenever a host detects that it has remained at the same link, it can | |||
| usually assume its IP configuration is still valid. Otherwise, the | usually assume its IP configuration is still valid. Otherwise, the | |||
| existing one is no longer valid and a new configuration must be | existing one is no longer valid and a new configuration must be | |||
| acquired. Hence, to examine the validity of an IP configuration, all | acquired. Hence, to examine the validity of an IP configuration, all | |||
| that is required is that the host checks for link change. | that is required is that the host checks for link change. | |||
| skipping to change at page 3, line 51 ¶ | skipping to change at page 3, line 50 ¶ | |||
| on-link prefixes. So, when an IP subnet change has occurred, the | on-link prefixes. So, when an IP subnet change has occurred, the | |||
| host can immediately initiate the process of getting a new IP | host can immediately initiate the process of getting a new IP | |||
| configuration. This may reduce handoff delay and minimize signaling. | configuration. This may reduce handoff delay and minimize signaling. | |||
| Rapid attachment detection is required for a device that changes | Rapid attachment detection is required for a device that changes | |||
| subnet while having on-going sessions. This may be the case if a | subnet while having on-going sessions. This may be the case if a | |||
| host is connected intermittently, is a mobile node, or has urgent | host is connected intermittently, is a mobile node, or has urgent | |||
| data to transmit upon attachment to a link. | data to transmit upon attachment to a link. | |||
| The process by which a host collects the appropriate information and | The process by which a host collects the appropriate information and | |||
| detects the identity of its currently attached link to ascertains the | detects the identity of its currently attached link to ascertain the | |||
| validity of its IP configuration, is called Detecting Network | validity of its IP configuration, is called Detecting Network | |||
| Attachment (DNA). | Attachment (DNA). | |||
| DNA schemes are typically run per interface. When a host has | DNA schemes are typically run per interface. When a host has | |||
| multiple interfaces, the host separately checks for link changes on | multiple interfaces, the host separately checks for link changes on | |||
| each interface. | each interface. | |||
| It is important to note that DNA process does not include the actual | It is important to note that DNA process does not include the actual | |||
| IP configuration procedure. For example, with respect to DHCP, the | IP configuration procedure. For example, with respect to DHCP, the | |||
| DNA process may determine that the host needs to get some | DNA process may determine that the host needs to get some | |||
| configuration information from a DHCP server. However, the process | configuration information from a DHCP server. However, the process | |||
| of actually retrieving the information from a DHCP server falls | of actually retrieving the information from a DHCP server falls | |||
| beyond the scope of DNA. | beyond the scope of DNA. | |||
| This draft considers the DNA procedure only from the IPv6 point of | This draft considers the DNA procedure only from the IPv6 point of | |||
| view, unless otherwise explicitly mentioned. Hence, the term "IP" is | view, unless otherwise explicitly mentioned. Hence, the term "IP" is | |||
| to be understood to denote IPv6, by default. For the IPv4 case, | to be understood to denote IPv6, by default. For the IPv4 case, | |||
| refer [10]. | refer to [7]. | |||
| 2. Problems in Detecting Network Attachment | 2. Problems in Detecting Network Attachment | |||
| There are a number of issues that make DNA complicated. First, | There are a number of issues that make DNA complicated. First, | |||
| wireless connectivity is not as clear-cut as wired one. Second, it's | wireless connectivity is not as clear-cut as wired connectivity. | |||
| difficult for a single RA message to indicate a link change. Third, | Second, it's difficult for a single Router Advertisement message to | |||
| Router Discovery may take too long and result in service disruption. | indicate a link change. Third, the current Router Discovery | |||
| specification specifies that routers wait a random delay of 0-.5 | ||||
| seconds prior to responding with a solicited RA. This delay can be | ||||
| significant and may result in service disruption. | ||||
| 2.1 Wireless link properties | 2.1 Wireless link properties | |||
| Unlike wired environments, what constitutes a wireless link is | Unlike wired environments, what constitutes a wireless link is | |||
| variable both in time and space. Wireless links do not have clear | variable both in time and space. Wireless links do not have clear | |||
| boundaries. This may be illustrated by the fact that a host may be | boundaries. This may be illustrated by the fact that a host may be | |||
| within the coverage area of multiple (802.11) access points at the | within the coverage area of multiple (802.11) access points at the | |||
| same time. Moreover, connectivity on a wireless link can be very | same time. Moreover, connectivity on a wireless link can be very | |||
| volatile, which may make link identity detection hard. For example, | volatile, which may make link identity detection hard. For example, | |||
| it takes time for a host to check for link change. If the host | it takes time for a host to check for link change. If the host | |||
| skipping to change at page 6, line 18 ¶ | skipping to change at page 6, line 19 ¶ | |||
| disruption. | disruption. | |||
| 1) Delay for receiving a hint | 1) Delay for receiving a hint | |||
| Hint is an indication that a link change might have occurred. This | Hint is an indication that a link change might have occurred. This | |||
| hint itself doesn't confirm a link change, but initiates appropriate | hint itself doesn't confirm a link change, but initiates appropriate | |||
| DNA procedures to detect the identity of the currently attached link. | DNA procedures to detect the identity of the currently attached link. | |||
| Hints come in various forms, and differ in how they indicate a | Hints come in various forms, and differ in how they indicate a | |||
| possible link change. They can be link-layer event notifications | possible link change. They can be link-layer event notifications | |||
| [9], the lack of RA from the default router, or the receipt of a new | [6], the lack of RA from the default router, or the receipt of a new | |||
| RA. The time taken to receive a hint also varies. | RA. The time taken to receive a hint also varies. | |||
| As soon as a new link-layer connection has been made, the link-layer | As soon as a new link-layer connection has been made, the link-layer | |||
| may send a link up notification to the IP layer. A host may | may send a link up notification to the IP layer. A host may | |||
| interpret the new link-layer connection as a hint for a possible link | interpret the new link-layer connection as a hint for a possible link | |||
| change. With link-layer support, a host can receive such a hint | change. With link-layer support, a host can receive such a hint | |||
| almost instantly. | almost instantly. | |||
| Mobile IPv6 [5] defines the use of RA Interval Timer expiry for a | Mobile IPv6 [4] defines the use of RA Interval Timer expiry for a | |||
| hint. A host keeps monitoring for periodic RAs and interprets the | hint. A host keeps monitoring for periodic RAs and interprets the | |||
| lack of them as a hint. It may implement its own policy to determine | lack of them as a hint. It may implement its own policy to determine | |||
| the number of missing RAs needed to interpret that as a hint. Hence, | the number of missing RAs needed to interpret that as a hint. Hence, | |||
| the delay depends on the Router Advertisement interval. | the delay depends on the Router Advertisement interval. | |||
| Without schemes such as the ones above, a host must receive a new RA | Without schemes such as the ones above, a host must receive a new RA | |||
| from a new router to detect a possible link change. The detection | from a new router to detect a possible link change. The detection | |||
| time then also depends on the Router advertisement frequency. | time then also depends on the Router Advertisement frequency. | |||
| Periodic RA beaconing transmits packets within an interval varying | Periodic RA beaconing transmits packets within an interval varying | |||
| randomly between MinRtrAdvInterval to MaxRtrAdvInterval seconds. | randomly between MinRtrAdvInterval to MaxRtrAdvInterval seconds. | |||
| Because a network attachment is unrelated to the advertisement time | Because a network attachment is unrelated to the advertisement time | |||
| on the new link, hosts are expected to arrive, on average, half way | on the new link, hosts are expected to arrive, on average, half way | |||
| through the interval. This is approximately 1.75 seconds with | through the interval. This is approximately 1.75 seconds with | |||
| Neighbor Discovery [1] advertisement rates. | Neighbor Discovery [1] advertisement rates. | |||
| 2) Random delay execution for RS/ RA exchange | 2) Random delay execution for RS/ RA exchange | |||
| Router Solicitation and Router Advertisement messages are used for | Router Solicitation and Router Advertisement messages are used for | |||
| Router Discovery. According to [1], it is sometimes necessary for a | Router Discovery. According to [1], it is sometimes necessary for a | |||
| host to wait a random amount of time before it may send an RS, and | host to wait a random amount of time before it may send an RS, and | |||
| for a router to wait before it may reply with an RA. | for a router to wait before it may reply with an RA. | |||
| Before a host sends an initial solicitation, it SHOULD delay the | According to RFC 2461 [1]: | |||
| transmission for a random amount of time between 0 and | ||||
| MAX_RTR_SOLICITATION_DELAY (1 second). Furthermore, any Router | - before a host sends an initial solicitation, it SHOULD delay the | |||
| Advertisement sent in response to a Router Solicitation MUST be | transmission for a random amount of time between 0 and | |||
| delayed by a random time between 0 and MAX_RA_DELAY_TIME (0.5 | MAX_RTR_SOLICITATION_DELAY (1 second). | |||
| seconds). | ||||
| - Furthermore, any Router Advertisement sent in response to a Router | ||||
| Solicitation MUST be delayed by a random time between 0 and | ||||
| MAX_RA_DELAY_TIME (0.5 seconds). | ||||
| 3. Goals for Detecting Network Attachment | 3. Goals for Detecting Network Attachment | |||
| The DNA working group has been chartered to define an improved scheme | The DNA working group has been chartered to define an improved scheme | |||
| for detecting IPv6 network attachment. In this section, we define | for detecting IPv6 network attachment. In this section, we define | |||
| the goals that any such solutions should aim to fulfil. | the goals that any such solution should aim to fulfil. | |||
| DNA solutions should correctly determine whether a link change has | DNA solutions should correctly determine whether a link change has | |||
| occurred. Additionally, they should be sufficiently fast so that | occurred. Additionally, they should be sufficiently fast so that | |||
| there would be no or at most minimal service disruption. They should | there would be no or at most minimal service disruption. They should | |||
| neither flood the link with related signaling nor introduce new | neither flood the link with related signaling nor introduce new | |||
| security holes. | security holes. | |||
| When defining new solutions, it is necessary to investigate the usage | When defining new solutions, it is necessary to investigate the usage | |||
| of available tools, NS/NA messages, RS/RA messages, link-layer event | of available tools, Neighbor Solicitation/Neighbor Advertisement | |||
| notifications [9], and other features. This will allow precise | messages, RS/RA messages, link-layer event notifications [6], and | |||
| description of procedures for efficient DNA Schemes. | other features. This will allow precise description of procedures | |||
| for efficient DNA Schemes. | ||||
| 3.1 Goals list | 3.1 Goals list | |||
| G1 DNA schemes should detect the identity of the currently attached | G1 DNA schemes should detect the identity of the currently attached | |||
| link to ascertain the validity of the existing IP configuration. | link to ascertain the validity of the existing IP configuration. | |||
| They should recognize and determine whether a link change has | They should recognize and determine whether a link change has | |||
| occurred and initiate the process of acquiring a new configuration | occurred and initiate the process of acquiring a new configuration | |||
| if necessary. | if necessary. | |||
| G2 When upper-layer protocol sessions are being supported, DNA | G2 DNA schemes should detect the identity of an attached link with | |||
| schemes should detect the identity of an attached link with | ||||
| minimal latency lest there should be service disruption. | minimal latency lest there should be service disruption. | |||
| G3 In the case where a host has not changed a link, DNA schemes | G3 In the case where a host has not changed a link, DNA schemes | |||
| should not falsely assume a link change and an IP configuration | should not falsely assume a link change and an IP configuration | |||
| change should not occur. | change should not occur. | |||
| G4 DNA schemes should not cause undue signaling on a link. | G4 DNA schemes should not cause undue signaling on a link. | |||
| G5 DNA schemes should make use of existing signaling mechanisms where | G5 DNA schemes should make use of existing signaling mechanisms where | |||
| available. | available. | |||
| G6 DNA schemes should make use of signaling within the link | G6 DNA schemes should make use of signaling within the link | |||
| (particularly link-local scope messages), since communication | (particularly link-local scope messages), since communication | |||
| off-link may not be achievable in the case of a link change. | off-link may not be achievable in the case of a link change. | |||
| G7 DNA schemes should be compatible with security schemes such as | G7 DNA schemes should be compatible with security schemes such as | |||
| Secure Neighbour Discovery [4]. | Secure Neighbour Discovery [3]. | |||
| G8 DNA schemes should not introduce new security vulnerabilities. | G8 DNA schemes should not introduce new security vulnerabilities. | |||
| The node supporting DNA schemes should not expose itself or others | The node supporting DNA schemes should not expose itself or others | |||
| on a link to additional man in the middle, identity revealing, or | on a link to additional man-in-the-middle, identity revealing, or | |||
| denial of service attacks. | denial of service attacks. | |||
| G9 The nodes, such as routers or hosts, supporting DNA schemes should | G9 The nodes, such as routers or hosts, supporting DNA schemes should | |||
| work appropriately with unmodified nodes, such as routers or | work appropriately with unmodified nodes, such as routers or | |||
| hosts, which do not support DNA schemes. | hosts, which do not support DNA schemes. | |||
| G10 Hosts, especially in wireless environments, may perceive routers | G10 Hosts, especially in wireless environments, may perceive routers | |||
| reachable on different links. DNA schemes should take into | reachable on different links. DNA schemes should take into | |||
| consideration the case where a host is attached to more than one | consideration the case where a host is attached to more than one | |||
| link at the same time. | link at the same time. | |||
| 4. IANA Considerations | 4. IANA Considerations | |||
| No new message formats or services are defined in this document. | No new message formats or services are defined in this document. | |||
| 5. Security Considerations | 5. Security Considerations | |||
| Because DNA schemes are based on Neighbor Discovery, its trust models | DNA process is intimately related to Neighbor Discovery protocol [1] | |||
| and threats are similar to the ones presented in RFC 3756 [6]. Nodes | and its trust model and threats have much in common with the ones | |||
| connected over wireless interfaces may be particularly susceptible to | presented in RFC 3756 [5]. Nodes connected over wireless interfaces | |||
| jamming, monitoring, and packet insertion attacks. | may be particularly susceptible to jamming, monitoring, and packet | |||
| insertion attacks. | ||||
| With unsecured DNA schemes, it is inadvisable for a host to adjust | With unsecured DNA schemes, it is inadvisable for a host to adjust | |||
| its security based on which network it believes it is attached to. | its security based on which network it believes it is attached to. | |||
| For example, it would be inappropriate for a host to disable its | For example, it would be inappropriate for a host to disable its | |||
| personal firewall based on the belief that it had connected to a home | personal firewall based on the belief that it had connected to a home | |||
| network. | network. | |||
| Even in the case where authoritative information (routing and prefix | Even in the case where authoritative information (routing and prefix | |||
| state) are advertised, wireless network attackers may still prevent | state) are advertised, wireless network attackers may still prevent | |||
| soliciting nodes from receiving packets. This may cause unnecessary | soliciting nodes from receiving packets. This may cause unnecessary | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 12 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 12 ¶ | |||
| Pentland, Nick Moore, Youn-Hee Han, JaeHoon Kim, Alper Yegin, Jim | Pentland, Nick Moore, Youn-Hee Han, JaeHoon Kim, Alper Yegin, Jim | |||
| Bound and Jari Arkko for their contributions to this draft. | Bound and Jari Arkko for their contributions to this draft. | |||
| 7. References | 7. References | |||
| 7.1 Normative References | 7.1 Normative References | |||
| [1] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for | [1] Narten, T., Nordmark, E. and W. Simpson, "Neighbor Discovery for | |||
| IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. | IP Version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 2461, December 1998. | |||
| [2] Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address | [2] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC | |||
| Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998. | ||||
| [3] Manner, J. and M. Kojo, "Mobility Related Terminology", RFC | ||||
| 3753, June 2004. | 3753, June 2004. | |||
| [4] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Sommerfeld, B., Zill, B. and P. Nikander, | [3] Arkko, J., Kempf, J., Sommerfeld, B., Zill, B. and P. Nikander, | |||
| "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", draft-ietf-send-ndopt-06 | "SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)", draft-ietf-send-ndopt-06 | |||
| (work in progress), July 2004. | (work in progress), July 2004. | |||
| 7.2 Informative References | 7.2 Informative References | |||
| [5] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in | [4] Johnson, D., Perkins, C. and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in | |||
| IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. | IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004. | |||
| [6] Nikander, P., Kempf, J. and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor | ||||
| Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May 2004. | ||||
| [7] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M. | ||||
| Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 | ||||
| (DHCPv6)", RFC 3315, July 2003. | ||||
| [8] Thayer, R., Doraswamy, N. and R. Glenn, "IP Security Document | [5] Nikander, P., Kempf, J. and E. Nordmark, "IPv6 Neighbor | |||
| Roadmap", RFC 2411, November 1998. | Discovery (ND) Trust Models and Threats", RFC 3756, May 2004. | |||
| [9] Yegin, A., "Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting | [6] Yegin, A., "Link-layer Event Notifications for Detecting Network | |||
| Network Attachments", draft-ietf-dna-link-information-00 (work | Attachments", draft-ietf-dna-link-information-00 (work in | |||
| in progress), September 2004. | progress), September 2004. | |||
| [10] Aboba, B., "Detection of Network Attachment (DNA) in IPv4", | [7] Aboba, B., "Detection of Network Attachment (DNA) in IPv4", | |||
| draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-08 (work in progress), July 2004. | draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-09 (work in progress), October 2004. | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| JinHyeock Choi | JinHyeock Choi | |||
| Samsung AIT | Samsung AIT | |||
| Communication & N/W Lab | Communication & N/W Lab | |||
| P.O.Box 111 Suwon 440-600 | P.O.Box 111 Suwon 440-600 | |||
| KOREA | KOREA | |||
| Phone: +82 31 280 9233 | Phone: +82 31 280 9233 | |||
| End of changes. 28 change blocks. | ||||
| 62 lines changed or deleted | 58 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||