Dear Ines,


Thank you very much for your review and sorry for our delayed response.  Please 
see my reponse inline.



-----Original Message-----
From: Ines Robles via Datatracker <nore...@ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2024 12:48 AM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations....@ietf.org; last-c...@ietf.org; 
v6...@ietf.org
Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations-06



Reviewer: Ines Robles

Review result: Ready with Issues



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review Team 
(Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the IETF 
Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call comments.



For more information, please see the FAQ at



<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.



Document: draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations-06

Reviewer: Ines Robles

Review Date: 2024-10-18

IETF LC End Date: 2024-10-18

IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat



Summary:



Summary:



The Draft provides a comprehensive review of the challenges associated with

IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND) and summarizes existing mitigation solutions 
documented across more than 20 RFCs.



Please find below my comments/suggestions below:



Major Issues: None



Minor Issues/Nits:



Section 1.1



"..link-layer addresses are referred to as MAC addresses in this document" --> 
"In this document, link-layer addresses specifically refer to Media Access 
Control (MAC) addresses." ?



=> We will change the sentence to " To avoid confusion with link-local 
addresses, link-layer addresses are referred to as MAC addresses in this 
document."





Section 2.1



"..by listening to only one out of multiple Delivery Traffic Indication Message

(DTIM) beacons..." — The statement implies that devices may be missing DTIM 
beacons themselves, which is unclear.



I understand that devices rely on DTIM beacons to know when multicast or 
broadcast traffic is available. Devices wake up for every DTIM beacon, but DTIM 
beacons occur less frequently than regular beacon frames due to the DTIM period 
setting. Devices do not selectively ignore DTIM beacons; rather, they may 
ignore regular beacon frames and only wake up for DTIM beacons. For instance, 
if the DTIM period is set to a high value (e.g., 10), devices will only wake up 
every 10 beacon intervals. This can introduce delays in receiving multicast 
traffic, but devices are not missing DTIM beacons unless they are asleep for 
extended periods. Therefore, because devices wake up less frequently for DTIM 
beacons, latency can occur in receiving multicast traffic. Additionally, 
multicast frames are transmitted at lower data rates and are not retransmitted 
upon loss, which can lead to packet loss.



Thus, for improved clarification, a suggestion as follows:

"..In Wi-Fi networks, mobile devices often employ power-saving modes, where 
they may sleep through multiple beacon intervals and wake up only for Delivery 
Traffic Indication Message (DTIM) beacons [RFC9119]. Since DTIM beacons occur 
less frequently, this can introduce delays in receiving multicast traffic.

Moreover, multicast frames are transmitted at lower data rates without 
retransmissions, leading to potential packet loss. As a result, multicast 
traffic over Wi-Fi can suffer from reduced performance and reliability..."



=> Thank you very much for your clarification. We will adopt your suggested 
text.





Section 3.3:

* Which are the privacy considerations? what about RFC 8981 to mitigate privacy 
risks? * What it is the meaning of "upstream multicast"?



=> Privacy considerations are discussed in “4.2.1. Applicability of L3 & L2 
Isolation”.  We also change “upstream multicast” to “multicast”.





Section 3.11:



"...Rate-limiting the NDP queue to avoid CPU/memory overflow..." --> 
"...Implement rate-limiting mechanisms for NDP (Neighbor Discovery Protocol) 
message processing to prevent CPU and memory resources from being 
overwhelmed..."?



=> We adopt your suggested text.



Thank you very much.



XiPeng & co-authors





Thanks for this document,



Ines.




_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list -- gen-art@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to gen-art-le...@ietf.org

Reply via email to