Comparison of Link Identification schemes Objective: Present the similarities and differences of the two schemes.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
IPv6 State-less Auto-configuration. IPv6 Stateless Autoconfiguration2 Stateless Autoconfiguration Overview One of the most useful aspects of IPv6 is its.
Advertisements

DNA design team update Brett Pentland – Monash University.
DNA design team update Brett Pentland – Monash University.
Next Generation Internet by R.S. Chang, Dept. CSIE, NDHU1 Configuring Hosts through DHCP Configuring Hosts through DHCP.
Recommendations for IPv6 in 3GPP Standards draft-wasserman-3gpp-advice-00.txt IPv6-3GPP Design Team Salt Lake City IETF December 2001.
Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 Mangesh Kaushikkar. Overview Introduction Terminology Protocol Overview Message Formats Conceptual Model of a Host.
1 Address Selection, Failure Detection and Recovery in MULTI6 draft-arkko-multi6dt-failure-detection-00.txt Multi6 Design Team -- Jari Arkko, Marcelo Bagnulo,
Network Localized Mobility Management using DHCP
DNAv6 Goals JinHyeock Choi, Samsung AIT
IPv4 and IPv6 Mobility Support Using MPLS and MP-BGP draft-berzin-malis-mpls-mobility-00 Oleg Berzin, Andy Malis {oleg.berzin,
FunctionLinkID draft-jinchoi-dna-protocol2 Landmark + CompleteRA draft-pentland-dna-protocol Identifier choice (1)Routers choose IDHost chooses ID Identifier.
© Mobile Platform Laboratory | SAMSUNG Electronics IPv6 DAD Optimization Goals and Requirements Soohong Daniel Park / Youn-Hee Han / Greg Daley
DNA design team update Brett Pentland – Monash University.
Neighbor Discovery for IP Version 6
Detecting Network Attachment (DNA) Working Group Session IETF 63, Paris Chairs: Greg Daley, Suresh Krishnan.
A General approach to MPLS Path Protection using Segments Ashish Gupta Ashish Gupta.
IPv6 Mobility David Bush. Correspondent Node Operation DEF: Correspondent node is any node that is trying to communicate with a mobile node. This node.
Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Problem Statement JinHyeock Choi, Samsung AIT
Strategies For Detecting Network Attachment in Wireless IPv6 Networks Greg Daley - Research Fellow Monash University Centre for Telecommunications and.
A General approach to MPLS Path Protection using Segments Ashish Gupta Ashish Gupta.
DNA design team update JinHyeock Choi Tero Kauppinen James Kempf Sathya Narayanan Erik Nordmark Brett Pentland Design Team: Brett Pentland.
Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Networks (DNAv6) draft-ietf-dna-protocol-05.txt S. Narayanan, Ed. J. Kempf, E. Nordmark, B. Pentland, JH. Choi, G.
Guide to TCP/IP Fourth Edition
(part 3).  Switches, also known as switching hubs, have become an increasingly important part of our networking today, because when working with hubs,
Basic Concepts of Computer Networks
Forwarding Hint in NFD Junxiao Shi,
ICMP (Internet Control Message Protocol) Computer Networks By: Saeedeh Zahmatkesh spring.
1 Chapter06 Mobile IP. 2 Outline What is the problem at the routing layer when Internet hosts move?! Can the problem be solved? What is the standard solution?
© Janice Regan, CMPT 128, CMPT 371 Data Communications and Networking BGP, Flooding, Multicast routing.
IETF54 Charter Issues Dealt with since IETF53 PANA WG Meeting Basavaraj Patil.
© 2004, The Technology Firm Ethertype 886 from the Intel website Probe Packets and Settings AFT and ALB teams use probe packets. Probes.
Authentication Mechanism for Port Control Protocol (PCP) draft-wasserman-pcp-authentication-01.txt Margaret Wasserman Sam Hartman Painless Security Dacheng.
March 12, 2008© Copyright 2008 John Buford SAM Overlay Protocol draft-buford-irtf-sam-overlay-protocol-01.txt John Buford, Avaya Labs Research IETF 71.
Slide title In CAPITALS 50 pt Slide subtitle 32 pt Simple DNA draft-krishnan-dna-simple-03 Suresh Krishnan Greg Daley.
Engineering Workshops Purposes of Neighbor Solicitation.
Multiple Access.
Deterministic Fast Router Advertisement Configuration Update draft-daley-dna-det-fastra-01.txt Presenter: Greg Daley.
Wireless TCP. References r Hari Balakrishnan, Venkat Padmanabhan, Srinivasan Seshan and Randy H. Katz, " A Comparison of Mechanisms for Improving TCP.
1 © 2003, Cisco Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. CCNA 3 v3.0 Module 9 Virtual Trunking Protocol.
11 draft-pentland-dna-protocol3-00.txt Brett Pentland.
IETF 61 – Washington D.C.1 Detecting Network Attachment Best Current Practices draft-narayanan-dna-bcp-01.txt Sathya Narayanan Panasonic Greg Daley Monash.
6lowpan ND Optimization draft Update Samita Chakrabarti Erik Nordmark IETF 69, 2007 draft-chakrabarti-6lowpan-ipv6-nd-03.txt.
JinHyeock Choi, DongYun Shin hppt:// Fast Router Discovery with L2 Support draft-jinchoi-dna-frd-01.txt.
Content Routing Protocol Design Karthikeyan Ganesan Shruti Venkatesh Rafay Zamir.
ICMPv6 Error Message Types Informational Message Types.
Submission doc.: IEEE 11-12/535r1 May 2012 Jarkko Kneckt, NokiaSlide 1 Scanning and FILS requirements Date: Authors:
GMPLS Recovery Signaling Issues draft-rhodes-rsvp-recovery-signaling-01 Nic Neate Data Connection Ltd (DCL)
DOC Use Case Analysis Client to server use cases 1.
JinHyeock Choi, Syam Madanapalli hppt:// DNA Solution: Link Identifier based approach draft-jinchoi-dna-protocol2-01.txt.
BAI513 - Protocols IP Version 6 Operation BAIST – Network Management.
© 2015 Infoblox Inc. All Rights Reserved. Tom Coffeen, IPv6 Evangelist UKNOF January 2015 Tom Coffeen, IPv6 Evangelist UKNOF January 2015 DHCPv6 Operational.
Combined Metamodel for UCM Contributed by Anthony B. Coates, Londata 17 February, 2008.
Asstt. Professor Adeel Akram. Other Novel Routing Approaches Link reversal Aimed for highly dynamic networks Goal: to identify some path, as opposed.
Virtual Local Area Networks In Security By Mark Reed.
RIP.
Network Layer COMPUTER NETWORKS Networking Standards (Network LAYER)
Detecting Network Attachment in IPv6 Networks (DNAv6) draft-ietf-dna-protocol-03.txt S. Narayanan, Ed. J. Kempf, E. Nordmark, B. Pentland, JH. Choi, G.
Introduction Wireless devices offering IP connectivity
Mobile IP.
MPLS-TP Fault Management Draft draft-boutros-mpls-tp-fault-01
Cluster Communications
Fast Router Discovery with RA Caching
Chapter 6: Transport Layer (Part I)
Mobility And IP Addressing
Router Advertisement Link Identifiers (LinkID)
Proposal for IEEE 802.1CQ-LAAP
Proposal for IEEE 802.1CQ-LAAP
Proposal for IEEE 802.1CQ-LAAP
Viet Nguyen Jianqing Liu Yaqin Tang
Presentation transcript:

Comparison of Link Identification schemes Objective: Present the similarities and differences of the two schemes

AFAIK Both solutions require all the routers to learn the set of all prefixes on the link. Both solutions use the set of all prefixes implicitly as the link identifier –Primary difference is in the how it is represented in RA messages.

Goals G1: Link identification and validate IP configuration G2: Minimal latency G3: False change detection should be avoided. G4: No undue signaling G5: Use existing signaling mechanism

Goals (Contd.) G6: Use only link local scope signaling. G7: Compatible with SEND. G8: No new security vulnerabilities. G9: The nodes, such as routers or hosts, supporting DNA schemes should work appropriately with unmodified nodes, such as routers or hosts, which do not support DNA schemes. G10: Support nodes attached to multiple links.

FunctionLinkID draft-jinchoi-dna-protocol2 Landmark + CompleteRA draft-pentland-dna-protocol Identifier choice (1)Routers choose IDHost (Landmark) and Router choose ID (Complete Prefix list) Identifier structure(2)One prefix from LinkAt least one prefix Previous Link Prefix disclosure (3)Not required Help with complete prefix list generation (4) Rely on CPL-draft recommendation Yes Solicitation required (5)No RS required for FastRA (6)Yes DNA to DNA move (7)Single RA Non-DNA to DNA move (8)Relies on L2 HintYes DNA to non-DNA move (9)Relies on CPL –draft recommendation for CPL generation Yes: Except new router on Link Supports mixed links (10)Relies on L2 hint if the prefixes are disjoint Yes Support large # of prefixes (11)YesYes (Landmark only advantages)

Additional information

FunctionLinkIDLandmark + CompleteRA Bandwidth solicited RA (1 router) RS + RA (+ 32 if LinkID is in LPIO) (+32 for another LinkID) RS RA + DNAO + 24: less options and DNAO if Yes answer Bandwidth unsolicited RA ( if r is the mean RA rate) r * (RA (+ 32 if LinkID is in LPIO) (+32 for another LinkID)) r * (RA + DNAO) Average solicited bandwidth (if a is APs per Link) RS + RA (+ 32 if LinkID is in LPIO) (+32 for another LinkID) RS /a (RA+DNAO) + (1-1/a)(RA+24-options) Relies on CPL means: Relies on L2 Hints and whether the prefix list is actually complete. DNAO = ROOF ((17 (P – Conf) + 2)/8) * 8 Relies on Hints means: Requires L2 hints to be able to differentiate two links.

Footnotes 1.Identifier Choice: Indicates which device is in charge of coordinating the identifier or identifiers used for DNA. For the CompleteRA/Landmarks 2.LinkID chooses one out of all prefixes, as does landmark. CompleteRA uses all the prefixes, but the combined scheme, can use either. 3.With landmarks, the previous link’s prefix is included in the RS. It is possible in protocol-01, to send the RS without the last prefix, in which case, no landmark response is possible, but a completeRA may be sent. 4.Prefix Lists are built in draft-ietf-dna-cpl-01. Once all prefixes on the link are known, reception of RAs with no prefixes in the complete Prefix List indicate change of link. CompleteRA populates a prefix list immediately to make it complete. We assume here that Landmark/CompleteRA systems always send a completeRA if the host doesn’t already know the Complete Prefix List (if not Landmark=yes). In cases without CompleteRA, the procedures in the cpl draft must be relied upon to generate the Complete Prefix List. 5.Landmarks need a solicitation to indicate link change. CompleteRA and LinkID do not, and can just rely on comparison of received RAs to determine change

Footnotes 6.While this is related to the previous slide, this line was added to show that FastRA requires RS in any case. 7.Single RA refers to the fact that any single received RA can be used to determine if link change has occurred. 8.Here, ‘Relies on L2 hint’ indicates that distinguishing between a new router and a link change requires link-layer hint reception. This is the case where the new RA has no LinkID, even if the last RA did. For CompleteRA/Landmark, this assumes that the host has received a completeRA, and that any subsequent reception of an RA can be classified as a link change (if reliable L2 hints are in use, it works, as well as if there are hints from other sources such as L3 timers). 9.LinkID cannot determine immediately if there is a new router, or link change has occurred unless it already has a CPL. This also requires reliable L2 hints. CompleteRA is able to identify that change has occurred immediately, but without reliable L2 hints, may have spurious change detection when a non DNA router starts on the same link

Footnotes 10.RA messages from non-DNA routers become indistinguishable from link change unless reliable L2 hints are available in LinkID. CompleteRAs and Landmarks both learn about non-DNA routers’ prefixes. 11.CompleteRAs do not have an explicit bounded size, but Landmark answers can be sent even if all prefixes do not fit in one RA (To make a completeRA). The worst case scenario is if a link has one router, CompleteRA with SEND can only support 15 prefixes.

FunctionLandmarkCompleteRALinkIDLandmark + CompleteRA Identifier choiceHost chooses IDRouters choose ID Host chooses ID Identifier structureOne prefix from Link Set of all prefixes on Link One prefix from Link At least one prefix Previous Link Prefix disclosure RequiredNot required Complete prefix list generation Rely on CPLYesRely on CPLYes Solicitation requiredYesNo RS required for FastRA Yes DNA to DNA moveSingle RA Non-DNA to DNA move Yes: Landmark Nack Yes: CompleteRA overrides Relies on L2 HintYes DNA to non-DNA move Relies on CPLYes: Except new router on Link Relies on CPLYes: Except new router on Link Supports mixed linksYes: Landmarks even non DNA prefixes Yes: All prefixes in single message Relies on L2 hint if the prefixes are disjoint Yes Support large # of prefixes YesNo: Use CPL instead Yes

FunctionLandmarkCompleteRALinkIDLandmark + CompleteRA Bandwidth solicited RA (1 router) RS RA + 24: less options if Yes answer RS + RA + DNAO RS + RA (+ 32 if LinkID is in LPIO) (+32 for another LinkID) RS RA + DNAO + 24: less options and DNAO if Yes answer Bandwidth unsolicited RA ( if r is the mean RA rate) r * RAr * (RA + DNAO)r * (RA (+ 32 if LinkID is in LPIO) (+32 for another LinkID)) r * (RA + DNAO) Average solicited bandwidth (if a is APs per Link) RS /a (RA+24) + (1- 1/a)(RA+24-options) RS + RA + DNAO RS + RA (+ 32 if LinkID is in LPIO) (+32 for another LinkID) RS /a (RA+DNAO) + (1- 1/a)(RA+24-options) Relies on CPL means: Relies on L2 Hints and whether the prefix list is actually complete. DNAO = ROOF ((17 (P – Conf) + 2)/8) * 8 Relies on Hints means: Requires L2 hints to be able to differentiate two links.