Feedback is welcome...
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : IPv6 Router Solicitation Driven Access Considered
Harmful
Author(s) : Wojciech Dec
Filename: draft-dec-6man-rs-access-harmful-00.txt
Bob, Brian,
I'd like to push back on this consensus call. I am currently -1 on it.
Questions on the requirements, scope of solution, as well as its present
validity were raised and unanswered, in some cases totally, in others
incompletely or incoherently:
:27 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
Hello,
I would like to state that I am very much not in favour of the WG adopting
this document, due to a number of reasons presented below.
1. Requirements and architecture
These were never clear to start with, and the requirements/context appears
to undergo
Indeed, the use of this mechanism, to support a ds-lite tunnel initiated
from a handset, is rather puzzling. How will the operator know which handset
supports ds-lite, and what should happen if one doesn't?
Regards,
Wojtek.
On 14 October 2010 15:11, Maglione Roberta
a modification of the existing ICMPv6 spec as well as host
implementations. Is this the type of solution you are after? How does that
factor into your business reasons?
Thanks,
Woj.
Thanks,
Woj.
Just my 0.02 €.
Olaf
--
*Von:* Wojciech Dec [mailto:wdec.i
On 10 September 2010 12:52, olaf.bonn...@telekom.de wrote:
PPP is not used here. There are numerous different
deployment models, PPP
is an expensive one that should be avoided unless there is
serious use for
it.
While it is true that PPP is not used here, I won't say that
PPP
Sending periodic RAs with the PIO does not help with the two problems that
were pointed out:
- the network does not necessarily know when a host attaches, because the
host may timeout sending RSs before the link layer is available to carry
these RS's up to the node assigning a prefix. As a
On 26 August 2010 00:47, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.comwrote:
Hi Woj,
I think this is the basis of our disagreement. There are no assumptions
that this document is making. There are usage scenarios not involving the
mechanism proposed in this document that are relevant to
downstream.
The text in draft 07 does not reflect either, so which one is it?
Regards,
Woj.
On 25 August 2010 03:46, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.comwrote:
Hi Woj,
On 10-08-20 03:34 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
Hi Suresh,
Good to hear that you will be clarifying the draft. I take
On 25 August 2010 17:18, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.comwrote:
Hi Woj,
On 10-08-25 04:31 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
Hi Suresh,
thanks for looking further into this problem, and publishing an updated
draft 07. Let me however stress that this problem is one very strictly tied
will submit a revised version tomorrow.
On 10-08-19 12:26 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
Suresh,
On 8/19/10 9:43 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Woj,
On 10-08-19 09:22 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
There seems to be reason to explain the context/workings more clearly,
both in terms of multicasting
SInce the WG is being asked to adopt a draft it would seem rather natural to
explain the context of the usage more clearly, especially as it appears that
this usage context has a rather serious pitfall when used alongside a
regular IPv6 client (leaving such a client with no connectivity after an
: Wojciech Dec; Suresh Krishnan; Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting:draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt
Alan,
Don't you have that same problem regardless of the LIO?
If you have an IPv6 host directly connected to say your loving
Residential Gateway
Hi,
I have a question or two to the draft authors who can hopefully clarify the
expected context and working of this scheme, which at the moment is a bit
unclear.
In essence the problem this draft appears to be trying to solve is using
RS/RA messages to induce state into intermediate or IP edge
Hi Suresh,
thanks for your reply. Continued inline...
On 18 August 2010 16:03, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.comwrote:
Hi Woj,
Thanks for your comments.
On 10-08-18 07:11 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
Hi,
I have a question or two to the draft authors who can hopefully clarify
Of
*Wojciech Dec
*Sent:* August-18-10 10:46 AM
*To:* Suresh Krishnan
*Cc:* Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG Mailing List
*Subject:* Re: Consensus call on
adopting:draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt
Hi Suresh,
thanks for your reply. Continued inline...
On 18 August 2010 16:03, Suresh Krishnan
On 02/08/2010 15:24, Wes Beebee wbee...@cisco.com wrote:
As this draft is changing what has been a fundamental and fixed
assumption for a very long time (i.e. layer 3 multicast always equals
layer 2 multicast), I think it's important that use cases supporting it
are very clear in what
On 02/08/2010 15:07, Wes Beebee wbee...@cisco.com wrote:
One of the problems I have with this draft is that I don¹t think all of the
hardware platforms necessarily will support it in hardware. Saying, ³oh well,
it¹s a layer violation², is not good enough we routinely look at the
I support the adoption of this draft.
-Woj.
From: Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net
Date: 2010年7月28日 02:14:03JST
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Consensus call on adopting: draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-03.txt
All,
As noted in today's session of 6MAN, the
Replying based on my understanding
-Original Message-
From: Eliot Lear [mailto:l...@cisco.com]
Sent: 05 March 2010 08:02
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option
Woj,
Three questions for the group:
1. Is there a practical
Fine by me. Can the chairs allow 10mins for this draft?
-Woj.
From: teemu.savolai...@nokia.com
[mailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com]
Sent: 09 March 2010 09:04
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); ipv6@ietf.org; m...@ietf.org
Subject: RE
Hi Folks,
About 1 year ago we put together draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option), which after
having been presented and initially discussed in the DHC WG, was deemed
by the ADs (Ralph and Jari) to require 6man discussion before going any
further.
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: 14 January 2010 00:37
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Cc: Ole Troan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question: Detecting routers on a link
stepping away from ULAs, I should think the point is to
propagate routing configuration information
Perhaps a basic question or two: What is the purpose of the ULA being
advertised on the shared segment, and is the intent for the 2nd router
to auto-config itself an address in the ULA space and begin advertising
that ULA too?
Also, what is the proposed way of dealing with the case where the 2nd
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:ichiroumak...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Ole Troan
Sent: 13 January 2010 11:37
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question: Detecting routers on a link
Woj et al,
Perhaps a basic question or two: What
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Rémi Després
Sent: 09 December 2009 11:06
To: Xu Xiaohu
Cc: x...@cernet.edu.cn; eric.bur...@orange-ftgroup.com;
beh...@ietf.org; 'Brian E Carpenter'; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE]
I'd like to put forward some additional points which should perhaps be
concise enough to clarify the liaison and questions a bit more.
There are actually two issues, out of which the duplicate MAC address
issue is IMO a far less tractable problem (as it needs to be solved at
L2 for anything to
Based on a recent thread
(http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00896.html) the
following paragraph from the draft appears to warrant some more thought
if not outright a revision
In addition to the Prefix List, individual addresses are on-link if
they are the target of a
if not downright
additional security issues for operators.
-Woj.
-Original Message-
From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Sent: 26 June 2008 16:29
To: Wojciech Dec (wdec); Brian Haberman; ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: MILES DAVID; Bob Hinden
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last
Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model
29 matches
Mail list logo
