Bing, I as able to review the draft and agree this needs to be documented and discussed. I have had many frustrating nights dealing with my multiple OSs at home and figuring out what behaviour I was trying to expect when changing the upstream router's settings (M/O/A).
I think the problem space discussion within the draft should be enough to have a preliminary discussion in the WG. I know there have been issues in the past with various opinions on what the M/O bits (for example) should or should not be used for - or how authoritative they should be. If the groups can agree that there is in fact a problem, then I would agree with Arturo that we can have a constructive follow-up draft/discussion on the corrective action. Lets get past step 1 and agree there is an issue (or not); then go down the more sensitive path of agreeing to the corrective action. Thanks for putting this together. Regards, Victor Kuarsingh On 2013-02-26 2:14 AM, "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liub...@huawei.com> wrote: >Hi, 6man & v6ops > >We submitted a new draft to discuss the SLAAC/DHCPv6 interaction gaps. > >As we know there are several flags in RA messages regarding with the host >configuration behavior, which are A (Autonomous) flag, M (Managed) flag, >and O (Otherconfig) flag. >For some reason, the host behavior of interpreting the flags is ambiguous >in the standard (mainly RFC4862). I presented a draft discussing M flag >behavior in 6man @ietf84, and there were some feedbacks arguing the same >issue. This draft analyzed all the three flags, and provided test result >of current implementations, it showed the behavior of different >mainstream desktop OSes have varied. The ambiguous and variation might >cause operational problems, such as renumbering (used to discuss in >6renum WG and been documented in the WG drafts), cold start problem, and >management gaps .etc. > >Your review and comments would be appreciated very much. > >All the best, >Bing > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org] >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:52 PM >> To: Liubing (Leo) >> Cc: rbon...@juniper.net >> Subject: New Version Notification for >> draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt >> >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt >> has been successfully submitted by Bing Liu and posted to the >> IETF repository. >> >> Filename: draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem >> Revision: 01 >> Title: DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction Problem >> Statement >> Creation date: 2013-02-25 >> Group: Individual Submission >> Number of pages: 12 >> URL: >> >>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem >>- >> 01.txt >> Status: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem >> Htmlized: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01 >> Diff: >> >>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01 >> >> Abstract: >> This document analyzes the host behavior of DHCPv6/SLAAC interaction >> issue. It reviews the standard definition of the host behaviors and >> provides the test results of current mainstream implementations. Some >> potential operational gaps of the interaction are also described. >> >> >> >> >> The IETF Secretariat > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
