In your previous mail you wrote:
A simple question. When would you ever use global source
and destination addresses for a neighbor solicitation.
= there is no real constraint on addresses, only some special
cases (unspecified source and multicast destination). This keeps
the door open
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 12:21:08PM -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
It will take us years to secure all that we have to. IPsec has been
mandated since 1996 at least. Yet is was the last IPv6 spec in products
and I think compaq and ibm are the only vendors with product ipsec for
ipv6.
- Plus
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:52:15AM -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
Margaret,
What is required for a full implementation for IPv6 by the standards is
set in stone. Vendors that don't adhere to this are risking to much.
What they deploy and what standards is different issue.
I can have IPsec
Andrew,
Can we keep 3gpp architecture discussions OFF this list?
What we are talking about is an IPv6 host with a point-to-point
link to a router. They run PPP and the router delegates
a global prefix to the host. The router doesn't configure
any address on the delegated prefix and it supports
P.S. As a note the RNC, Node B, SGSN have nothing to do with
what we're
discussing and they're not involved in any of the IPv6 mechanisms
discussed so far.
In point of fact, these three devices sit between the host (terminal)
and the Internet, so they have to at least carry
On Wed, Mar 06, 2002 at 11:52:15AM -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
Margaret,
What is required for a full implementation for IPv6 by the
standards is
set in stone. Vendors that don't adhere to this are
risking to much.
What they deploy and what standards is different issue.
Date:Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:39:07 +0100
From:Karim El-Malki (ERA) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 795A014AF92DD21182AF0008C7A404320DFBEFEB@esealnt117
| You want to support IPsec and that's fine. However I don't
| think you always want to run IPsec when the result is
I'd prefer dealing with what we have now first since I'd
like to see v6 deployed in 3g in the near term.
We could discuss for a long time on how to improve a certain
cellular system and we probably all have our ideas
but that discussion would not belong here.
Regarding the DAD issue, it's the
Date:Thu, 7 Mar 2002 11:59:44 +0100
From:Karim El-Malki (ERA) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: 795A014AF92DD21182AF0008C7A404320DFBEFE8@esealnt117
| Can we keep 3gpp architecture discussions OFF this list?
As far as it goes, probably yes - but as long as you keep
| You want to support IPsec and that's fine. However I don't
| think you always want to run IPsec when the result is for
| example a possible higher packet loss rate.
No, of course you don't always want to run it. Why you you think
that anyone always wants to run it? But
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 01:33:46PM +0100, Karim El-Malki (ERA) wrote:
| You want to support IPsec and that's fine. However I don't
| think you always want to run IPsec when the result is for
| example a possible higher packet loss rate.
No, of course you don't always want to
All,
Jim and I have updated the Automatic Prefix Delegation draft
to take into account comments and suggestions made in the last few
months. I submitted it to the I-D editor last week, but have not
seen it posted yet so it is attached. Comments and suggestions are
always welcome.
Brian
In your previous mail you wrote:
PS: I'd like to get this (DAD considerations) for PPP in general.
Agreed. I'd also be in favour of allowing PPP links on which there's
some form of prefix delegation (doesn't have to be a prefix del. protocol)
to disable DAD. Some more work is
In your previous mail you wrote:
Catching up on old mail I saved for DHCPv6. Let me just start with your
view is wrong.
= do you argue we need dynamic address allocation for IPv6?
I don't see the point of arguing with you. DHCPv6 will be deployed and
widely used.
= Jim, you
| Can we keep 3gpp architecture discussions OFF this list?
As far as it goes, probably yes - but as long as you keep referring
to peculiarities of it, to justify other decisions, then no...
???
What does this have to do with cellular architectures?
We need to consider particulars of
In your previous mail you wrote:
But I don't really care about your opinion or others on what should be
used or not used from the work we do in the IETF.
= I disagree: the resources of IETF are not infinite so waste is
a common concern.
What I care about is if you find a technical
-Original Message-
From: Januszewski, Joseph (CIT)
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:08 PM
To:
Subject: FW: Should IP Security be Optional?
I think this has taken on a larger context than just cellular. (Which is I
guess why the Subject line has changed).
Don't forget that IPv4 is
Francis,
I have to jump in here - DHCPv6 is *not* just for dynamic address
allocation. Have those who are claiming that DHCPv6 will not be used
actually read the spec? It will be used for other configuration
parameters, as described in draft-droms-dnsconfig-dhcpv6-01.txt Arguments
that
With all due respect, I've read draft-prigent-dhcpv6-threats-00.txt. The
authors based this doc on an old draft of the DHCPv6, which they did not
understand very well.
- Ralph
At 02:39 PM 3/7/2002 +0100, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
But I don't really care
In RFC-2461 6.3.5 Timing out Prefixes adn Default Routers it says:
Whenever the Lifetime of an entry in the Default Router List
expires, that entry is discarded. When removing a router from the
Default Router list, the node MUST update the Destination Cache in
such a way that all
hi,
A simple question. When would you ever use global source
and destination addresses for a neighbor solicitation.
And why?
For an NS it makes sense to use an IP source address that the peer will
try to send packets to so that the NS (with a source link-layer address
option) can
In RFC-2461 6.3.5 Timing out Prefixes adn Default Routers it says:
Whenever the Lifetime of an entry in the Default Router List
expires, that entry is discarded. When removing a router from the
Default Router list, the node MUST update the Destination Cache in
such a way that
Randy Bush wrote:
I agree security is important and IPsec is good.
But the market and vendors will ship and use what they want.
we are not a vendor. we are the ietf. we make the bestquality standards we
can. if there are vendors which do not follow them, then if this is not due
to
Bound, Jim wrote:
John et al. Bag this lets go build a cellular host consortia with
vendors that want to ship and deploy IPv6 and build our use requirements
out of here.
Or we will be hacking on this in January 2003. It was a good thing to
try but it might not work to do use /
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
I'd be amenable some sort of guidelines document that offers
some guidance to 3GPP vendors on which portions of which IPv6
specifications should be implemented in cellular hosts.
Interestingly, that was roughly in line what we were *trying* to
do. Could discuss
Hi Keith,
Within IETF, the best we can do is to produce clear guidelines for what
is expected. The harm that will result if the expectations are violated
is not always possible to document in advance. Just look at the level
of denial that's still occuring about the harm that NATs cause.
In your previous mail you wrote:
I have to jump in here - DHCPv6 is *not* just for dynamic address
allocation. Have those who are claiming that DHCPv6 will not be used
actually read the spec?
= I read the spec (one of the statements I used in a message to Jim
is from the
Hello Karim,
I have no problem with the words in your note, but then you
have to rename the draft to be IPv6-over-nearterm-3G, or
better, IPv6-over-3GPPr5-PDP. That gets the point across.
If it's IPv6-over-cellular, then you have to write
the specification to apply to ALL cellular systems,
In your previous mail you wrote:
In RFC-2461 6.3.5 Timing out Prefixes adn Default Routers it says:
Whenever the Lifetime of an entry in the Default Router List
expires, that entry is discarded. When removing a router from the
Default Router list, the node MUST update
At 05:52 PM 3/7/2002 +0100, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
It will be used for other configuration
parameters, as described in
draft-droms-dnsconfig-dhcpv6-01.txt Arguments
that DHCPv6 has no utility because of stateless address autoconfiguration
are
Hi all,
I think we're having a pretty useful discussion
about this draft which has highlighted a number
of issues that need to be addressed. This
is an attempt to summarise the issues that were
discussed and see if we can find a way forward.
Please note, this is not to suggest 1, 2 or 3
I have no problem with the words in your note, but then you
have to rename the draft to be IPv6-over-nearterm-3G, or
better, IPv6-over-3GPPr5-PDP. That gets the point across.
If it's IPv6-over-cellular, then you have to write
the specification to apply to ALL cellular systems,
- A /64 is given to the cellular host _only_
what does that mean? surely the purpose of delegating a /64 is so that
multiple hosts can use it.
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:
But when you need IPsec, you
need it - and that you happen to be using a cellular link for some
particular communications is irrelevant.
= Hmm. That's a pretty big statement. If someone
decides to use IPsec for VoIP (an extreme example
I know) then is it still irrelevant whether
you are
Hesham,
I appreciate where you are trying to go, but I think you are still being
blinded to issues because the focus is to centric on *host*. Yes people
are motivated to worry about that problem first, but making design
assumptions based on the mobile device on the end of an air-link being
- A /64 is given to the cellular host _only_
what does that mean? surely the purpose of delegating a
/64 is so that
multiple hosts can use it.
= It means something like this:
AB
GGSN --- Hostoptional--- whatever you want tp put
GGSNs MUST
GGSNs MUST NOT use the /64 to configure addresses on their own interfaces.
If another host behind the cellular host (router in this case?)
configures an address it can do DAD as usual on link B. But no DAD is
needed on link A.
Makes sense?
yes. thanks.
Keith
Tony,
The right thing is to consider a basic host first, which is
what the cellular hosts work is about. That is simply because
3gpp will make widespread deployment of v6 hosts in the near term.
If we delay things further we're just going to end up with 3gpp
people going off and doing their own
Tony,
I appreciate where you are trying to go, but I think you
are still being
blinded to issues because the focus is to centric on
*host*. Yes people
are motivated to worry about that problem first, but making design
assumptions based on the mobile device on the end of an
Karim El-Malki wrote:
The right thing is to consider a basic host first, which is
what the cellular hosts work is about. That is simply because
3gpp will make widespread deployment of v6 hosts in the near term.
That is exactly why it is critical that this be done right the first
time. Once a
If we delay things further we're just going to end up with 3gpp
people going off and doing their own thing as Jim pointed out.
Threatening to go away and do the wrong thing as a
justification to do
the wrong thing here is a waste of time.
So far I haven't seen your proof that
I have been very consistent in that I want you to describe the
characteristics of the link. The device on the end could be either a
host or router, but the current focus on limited capability hosts is
preventing progress. The micro-handset *IS NOT SPECIAL*, so just get
over it.
Hello,
I also think that we should start work on two standards-track
documents, both of which would use the current draft as
input:
- An IPv6 over foo document for 3GPP links.
- A general IPv6 Node Requirements document.
I think some documents or at least descriptions of
43 matches
Mail list logo
