Hi, Victor & Arturo Thanks for the comments. We do plan to write a draft of subsequence solution. But as Victor said, step 1 is to see if the groups agree there are problems. So hope more people could feed back on this.
Many thanks. B.R. Bing > -----Original Message----- > From: Victor Kuarsingh [mailto:victor.kuarsi...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 9:28 PM > To: Liubing (Leo); ipv6@ietf.org; v6...@ietf.org > Cc: re...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps > > 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-proble > m > >>- > >> 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-0 > 1 > >> > >> 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
