RE: [DNA] Comments on draft-shim-dna-proactive-00.txt

[Zhigao Chen <zgchen@psl.com.sg>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au 
> [mailto:owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au] On Behalf Of 
> Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:34 AM
> To: Alper Yegin
> Cc: dna@eng.monash.edu.au
> Subject: RE: [DNA] Comments on draft-shim-dna-proactive-00.txt
> 
> > 
> > PPP hints...
> 
> Remember that in IPv6, PPP IPv6CP only assigns the Interface 
> Identifier, not the IPv6 address.  So the prefix needs to be 
> obtained via RS/RA. So I'm not clear how the PPP peer obtains 
> a 'hint' from PPP relating to the prefix.
> 
> Or were you thinking of IPv4, where PPP address assignment is 
> handled in IPv4CP?
> 

You are right. IPv6CP hint is not as strong as its counterpart in PPPv4.
A Host should still obtain/verify(in the context of the proposed DNAv6)
prefix(es) via RS/RA.

PS. I am mistaken in a statement of my previous email. Sending RS is
allowed in GPRS/3GPP (it is NS that is recommended not to be sent or
will be silently discarded by GGSN. I mixed these two messages). 

If anyone knows for what specific security or bandwidth management
reasons or or in what type of network sending a RS is discouraged,
please educate me.

Regards,
Zhigao