Sorry, you missed my point about your -02 draft with another typo where
the text says [is selected as the source address of a packet directed
from CN to EN] - this is text towards the end of section 1. The text
should say [packet directed from EN to CN] or I don't understand what
are you trying in this SAS example.

Further RFC 3484 considers a multi-homed example in section 10.5 and
clearly says 

[This predicament demonstrates the limitations of the
longest-matching-prefix heuristic in multi-homed situations.]

There are more than one set of means to figure out an optimized routing
for multi-homed sites. I think the WG should decide if we want to
propose a formal solution to the multi-homed scenario.

Thanks. 

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
FUJIKAWA Kenji
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:34 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Use longest-matching prefix to the next hop

Hemant Singh;

Thank you for your comments.

At Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:01:27 -0500,
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> 
> The draft should not be considered for 6man as a WG item just yet 
> because it needs some more work before the draft is even acceptable to

> review. Here is some things to look at after I read portions of the 
> draft at the URL below.
> 
> 1. Section 1 of the draft says 2001:db8:3001:1:EN is selected as the 
> source address of a packet directed from CN to EN. Huh? CN has only an

> address of 2001:db8:2001::CN, so how can a src of  2001:db8:3001:1:EN 
> be picked?
> 

Because 2001:db8:3001:1:EN longer-matches to 2001:db8:2001::CN than
2001:db8:1001:1:EN. 

# Note that 1 = 01, 2 = 10, and 3 = 11 in binary form.

> 2. Section 1 says:
> 
> [Here, in the above IPv6 address notation, CN, R1, R2, and EN 
> indicates 64bit Interface ID's.]
> 
> There is no router R2 in the picture of Fig. 1.
> 

This is typo.

> How can one review this document with such basic mistakes/typos in the

> picture?
> 
> 3. In section 3 you say:
> 
> [Before Rule 8 (Use longest matching prefix) in section 5.  (Source  
> Address Selection) in RFC3484, the rule using longest-matching prefix

> to the next hop is to be added.]
> 
> Did I get is right that you are changing src-addr based on next hop?
> Basic IP data forwarding and routing ships packets between consecutive

> hops using L2 addresses. For packet flow from src to dest with 
> multiple hops in between, the L3 src and dest addresses do not change!

> Src and dest L3 addresses can only be changed by some proxy node in 
> the path. I hope you are not suggesting changing L3 src-addr from hop
to hop!
> 

No, I am not suggesting changing L3 src-addr from hop to hop.

> I suggest you forget about the solution. First define your src-addr 
> selection problem and let the mailer first agree you have a problem.
> Then we'll see what is the solution. You have a lot of sections in the

> draft with problems/issues, viz.,
> 
> 1. A Problem of at Source Address Selection Rule 8. in RFC3484
> 2.1 Management Issue
> 2.2 Implementation Issue
> 
> It confuses the reader as to what is the one single problem you are 
> trying to solve. Or if you are solving multiple problems, list them at

> the beginning of the draft. Sorry, if I have missed such problem 
> definitions in the mailer earlier than one year from now.
> 

I see. Thank you for your advice.
2.1 and 2.2 should be "Management Approach" and "Implementation
Approach"
or something.

> I suggest the same to the authors of
> draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-sol-00.txt. Could you please first 
> describe what is the problem with SAS as specified in RFC 3484.
> 
> Hemant
>  
------------------------------------------------------------------
FUJIKAWA Kenji(Ph. D.) ROOT Inc., Osaka Information Laboratory 5F Pias
Tower, 3-19-3 Toyosaki Kita-ku, Osaka, 531-0072, Japan
Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WWW:   http://www23.atwiki.jp/hudikaha/
Skype: fujikawakenji


> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of FUJIKAWA Kenji
> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 9:31 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Use longest-matching prefix to the next hop
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I am submitting an ID,
>  
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/staging/draft-fujikawa-ipv6-src-addr-s
> el
> ection-02.txt
> and suggesting in the draft that,
> 
>    Before Rule 8 (Use longest matching prefix) in section 5.  (Source
>    Address Selection) in RFC3484, the rule using longest-matching
prefix
>    to the next hop is to be added.
> 
> The following is an example,
> where the Rule 8 selects the roundabout path via ISP3, while the 
> method of using longest-matching prefix to the next hop selects the 
> shortest and best path, when EN sends a packet to CN.
> 
> # In the previous IETF meeting I only showed a single router case.
> # but this method is adaptable and useful to the multiple router case.
> 
> I would like to ask if 6man people is interested in this topic, and 
> this can become working group item.
> 
>                          +---+
>                          |CN |
>                          +-+-+
>                            | 2001:db8:2001::CN
>                            |
>                        +---+---+2001:db8:2000:/36
>                        |       |
>              +---------+ ISP2  |
>              |         |       |
>              |         +-------+
>              |
>          +---+---+2001:db8:1000:/36  +-------+2001:db8:3000::/36
>          |       |                   |       |
>          | ISP1  +-------------------+ ISP3  |
>          |       |                   |       |
>          +---+---+                   +---+---+
>              |                           |
>              |                           |
>              +----------+       +--------+
>         2001:db8:1000:R1|       |2001:db8:3000:R3
>                       +-+-+   +-+-+
>     2001:db8:1001::/48|R1 |   |R3 |2001:db8:3001::/48
>                       +-+-+   +-+-+
>       2001:db8:1001:1:R1|       |2001:db8:3001:1:R3
>                         |       |
>                       --+---+---+--
>          2001:db8:1001:1:EN | 2001:db8:3001:1:EN
>                           +-+-+
>                           |EN |
>                           +---+
> 
>      Routing Tables:
>        R1:
>        Destination         Next Hop
>        2001:db8:1000::/36  address_of_ISP1's_router
>        2001:db8:2000::/36  address_of_ISP1's_router
>        R3:
>        2001:db8:3000::/36  address_of_ISP3's_router
>        EN:
>        Destination         Next Hop
>        2001:db8:1000::/36  2001:db8:1001:1:R1
>        2001:db8:2000::/36  2001:db8:1001:1:R1
>        2001:db8:3000::/36  2001:db8:3001:1:R3
> 
> Any questions and comments are welcome.
> 
> Regards,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> FUJIKAWA Kenji(Ph. D.) ROOT Inc., Osaka Information Laboratory 5F Pias

> Tower, 3-19-3 Toyosaki Kita-ku, Osaka, 531-0072, Japan
> Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> WWW:   http://www23.atwiki.jp/hudikaha/
> Skype: fujikawakenji
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to