Rao Satyanarayana-W60007 wrote:
Ralph, Implementation and test effort is always there whether it is a
existing protocol or a new protocol to catch implementation specific
bugs. Even if one licenses a particular implementation, there is
always testing involved though the effort can be less
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:45:55 -0700,
Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In particular, the text of Section 2.4, paragraph 1 beginning:
But DHCPv6 will solve the privacy issue is new since RFC3041
and seems to make questionable statements about the use of DHCP
for generating temporary
Hi Satya and icmpv6-pd draft co-authors,
Rao Satyanarayana-W60007 wrote:
We believe that there is a need for an alternate way of doing PD
simply because the DHCP PD is not intrinsic to the stack and makes it
unusable sometimes. ICMPv6 is intrinsic
I understand there may be a need for
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We do not create alternative ways to do the same thing, because
doing so will burden implementors with additional complexity and
reduces the likelihood that nodes can communicate successfully.
Picking a common way to do something is the fundamental idea
behind
Inline.
- Satya Rao
Mobile Devices Technology Office
Motorola
Tel: 512-996-6781
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Petrescu Alexandru-AAP021
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:35 AM
To: Rao Satyanarayana-W60007
Cc: Ralph Droms; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Durand, Alain; IETF
Hi Fred,
Well, the intention is to use RS/RA for PD but use icmp type/code for
any error messaging for the PD process between the requesters and
delegators.
Thanks,
- Satya Rao
Mobile Devices Technology Office
Motorola
Tel: 512-996-6781
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Hi Ralph, why is it hard to talk about the e-mail without more detail?
Do you believe that it is theoretically possible that DHCPv6 PD
would be neither required nor desired?
Please make the case here (using technical justifications). Basic the
need for a new protocol on theoretical
Boy, an awful lot of messages on this already, and what appears to be
a lot of repeating the same arguments, and not actually responding to
the concerns being raised (i.e., not listening). :-(
I guess I'll add my $0.02 as well.
Thanks for the quick e-mail. As one of the co-authors, I'd in
Well, the intention is to use RS/RA for PD but use icmp type/code for
any error messaging for the PD process between the requesters and
delegators.
OK, I see now. When Tim first contacted me he came across with
a certain sense of naivety that doesn't seem to be supported
by his interactions
Rao Satyanarayana-W60007 wrote:
I do not know what you mean by debug? Did anybody not say if a
proposal you may have submitted may or not work in some or certain
cases?. Did they not comment on the plus and minus points of the
proposal? That's what I mean by bugs in the proposal.
I
(cross-posting, since there seems to be interest in NETLMM
on the IPv6 list)
Having been away from e-mail for the past several days, the
text below is offered to cover the NETLMM Addressing concerns.
This would naturally go as replacement text for Section 5 of
Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
If we're to compare, I'd compare the ICMPv6-PD effort with the RA
option
to carry DNS Server effort. If things are to evolve quicker then
we could skip some intermediary steps.
Exactly. Why have two ways to the same thing! That's another effort
that should be
Title: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
Alexandru - you've used a phrase that I still don't understand. What
does it mean for a node to have a prefix that it can reuse [...] for itself
and for others?
- Ralph
-Original Message-
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
Alexandru - you've used a phrase that I still don't understand. What
does it mean for a node to have a prefix that it can reuse [...]
for itself and for others?
Ralph, thanks for asking. A node having a prefix it can reuse for
itself and for others means that
Title: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
Alex - thanks, that clarification helps. I wasn't sure if PD using ICMPv6
was using the phrase prefix delegation as you defined it, or to assign
a prefix between the requesting node and the assigning node (to
simulate a point-to-point link), or both.
James,
I don't think this quite captures the situation.
I tend to disagree; see below:
First off, a prefix advertised in an RA is not assigned to an end
node, it
is assigned to a link. A prefix can only rightly be considered to be
assigned to a node when it is delegated via DHCP, this
First off, a prefix advertised in an RA is not assigned to an end
node, it
is assigned to a link. A prefix can only rightly be considered to be
assigned to a node when it is delegated via DHCP, this allows the node
to
then assign the prefix to links downstream, or delegate further if the
Hi Tony, please see my in-line comments:
I think the questions should be is there merit in the
proposal?
That is true, but your section 3 does not establish that merit.
Hi Tony, just a reminder from an earlier e-mail that we will be seeking to
provide additional detail in section 3 in the
From: Templin, Fred L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/08/23 Wed PM 07:12:23 CDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
Tim,
I took a look at the I-D and it reads well.
Hi Fred, thanks.
I see that you
(and the co-authors) are
James,
jak The last paragraph of Section 2.1 in 4291 says:
Currently, IPv6 continues the IPv4 model in that a subnet prefix is
associated with one link. Multiple subnet prefixes may be assigned
to the same link.
jak So whether the term associated or assigned is used is not
Fred,
jak The last paragraph of Section 2.1 in 4291 says:
Currently, IPv6 continues the IPv4 model in that a subnet prefix is
associated with one link. Multiple subnet prefixes may be assigned
to the same link.
jak So whether the term associated or assigned is used is not
Rao Satyanarayana-W60007 wrote:
Thanks, Alex.
We too think the same about the use of PD - to be able subnet further
and RA downstream.
So one would need prefix delegation for a DSL-like deployment, or for a
mobile router deployment, but not for a netlmm deployment. Right?
Alex
jak What are your expectations about what advertising 'L=1' means
for the
link?
The criteria that allow a prefix to be advertised with 'L=1' are
covered under the final paragraph of the offered text, and what
advertising 'L=1' means for the link is covered under RFC2461.
The point of the
James,
I'm not going to discuss this text with you any further on the list at
this
time. I believe the text is sufficiently unclear and imprecise to
result in
confusion about how one should implement the MN-AR interface in
NETLMM.
Clearly, you disagree and you're not prepared to
Jinmei-san - in a private conversation, I made the following
recommendations:
After re-reading draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-04.txt, I
think the Abstract is now fine. I would recommend changing the first
sentence of the Introduction to:
Stateless address autoconfiguration [ADDRCONF]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Alexandru Petrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date:
2006/08/24 Thu AM 07:41:21 CDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tony
Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'Ralph Droms' [EMAIL PROTECTED],
'Durand, Alain' [EMAIL PROTECTED], 'IETF IPv6
Mailing List' ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Prefix
Fred,
I'm not going to discuss this text with you any further on the list at this
time. I believe the text is sufficiently unclear and imprecise to result in
confusion about how one should implement the MN-AR interface in NETLMM.
Clearly, you disagree and you're not prepared to accommodate
Hi Thomas, please see my comments in-line:
From: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/08/24 Thu AM 10:26:19 CDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Ralph Droms [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Durand,Alain [EMAIL PROTECTED],
IETF IPv6 Mailing List ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation
Fred,
OK, I see now. When Tim first contacted me he came across with a certain
sense of naivety
If you wish to remain focused on the issue at hand (namely, the merit of the
proposal we have placed before the group), please do so. As for such
impressions about me, please keep them off this
Hello Ralph,
CPE (RR) in your diagram participate in prefix delegation.
And CPE and Subscriber PCs can use the same prefix delegation
mechanism to assign unique prefixes to the subscriber PCs.
This can be useful in scenarios where unique prefix assignment
is required on a shared link.
-Syam
On
30 matches
Mail list logo
