IETF IPv6 Community, Please review the -02 version of our I-D. In particular, we'd like reviewers to focus on our proposed changes to 2461bis. We would like to specify on-link vs. off-link determination more clearly for ALL IPv6 hosts. On-link vs. off-link determines data forwarding and address resolution behavior for a host. We present a very important problem that relates to an aggregator router network used in deployments listed below (thanks to Adeel Ahmed for providing the list): - Wholesale Dial / Voice - DSL / ETTH / WLAN - Point-to-Point Model - PPP Terminated Aggregation (PTA) Model - L2TP Access Aggregation (LAA) Model In the U.S. alone, these aggregation router deployments span more than 50 million household subscribers - translating to at least 50 million potential IPv6 hosts in the future. First paragraph of section 3.1 of our I-D clearly explains why a routed aggregator doesn't echo packets received on any upstream down the downstream that corresponds to the upstream. The paragraph also explains how hosts in such an aggregation router deployment do not directly communicate to each other - hosts have to send traffic through the aggregation router. This deployment connectivity topology is known as off-link operation. Thus, an aggregation router deployment MUST specify that hosts even in the same prefix are off-link in the RA from the aggregation router. In some cases, on-link behavior can be clearly determined as specified in 2461bis. Off-link is defined as the opposite of on-link. In order to be sure that a host is operating in off-link mode, ALL cases in which a host should be on-link need to be clearly specified - thus, defining on-link and off-link mode clearly. Given the fact that an aggregation router deployment needs to ALWAYS specify off-link mode to hosts behind modems, the RA with "no PIO" case is potentially relevant to a large number of subscribers in an IPv6 aggregation router deployment. -Hemant & Wes.
________________________________ From: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 5:31 PM To: ipv6@ietf.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: New version of draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls is available Folks, Please see a new version of our I-D at the URL below. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitf alls-02.txt See change log to understand what has changed from the -01 version. Gross changes worth highlighting are: 1. A new section 7 has been added to the I-D that lists IPv6 ND implementation problems ala RFC 2525. 2. Section 5 is complete that lists proposed changes to 24621bis. 3. Section 6 has been edited and augmented for proposed changes to 2462bis. Best Regards. Hemant
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------