Doug,
But it's not. ... We _really_ want to get this right NOW. Adding more
kludges so that we can Just get it deployed is actually going to
make life (and future deployment) harder down the road, not easier.
Agreed so far.
Suresh wants to support a particular type of a deployment, and it
Some of the discussion has gone into the history of IPv6 design, what
configuration model was intended by the original designers as the right
one, and so on. I would suggest that while that's interesting, it may be
secondary to what we are discussing here.
Suresh wants to support a particular
On Fri, 10 Sep 2010, Jari Arkko wrote:
Host support is important because that is an area where neither the
IETF, any single vendor, or the DSL operators have any easy way to
change the situation. But it is of course by no means the only
constraint. The operators have their issues as well.
On 9/10/2010 5:59 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
Some of the discussion has gone into the history of IPv6 design, what
configuration model was intended by the original designers as the
right one, and so on. I would suggest that while that's interesting,
it may be secondary to what we are discussing here.
: September-08-10 2:27 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: Narten Thomas; IPv6 WG Mailing List; Suresh Krishnan
Subject: Re: New version available (Was Re: Consensus call on
adopting:draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt)
Joel - only some operators have decided that they need to allow for the
corner case
Hi Suresh,
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Julien,
On 10-09-08 07:43 PM, Laganier, Julien wrote:
Thomas Narten wrote:
[...]
RAs/SLAAC work very well when RAs can be multicast to *all* nodes on
a link, and *all* nodes receive exactly the same information about
prefixes and SLAAC. I.e,
Hi Doug,
Just clarifying one technical point that you raised.
On 10-09-10 03:04 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Two responses. If we can't expect the hosts to be changed in order for
this to work, how do we expect them to send clever new RS messages even
if the draft is adopted (or perhaps I'm
Suresh,
There are still unanswered questions..
Comments inline ...
--
Shree
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com]
[..snip..]
1. Prefix Lifetime Binding/Expiry..
Unlike DHCP there is no mechanism with SLAAC for a host (client) to
Suresh,
5. Creating an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
One SLAAC is defined to do functionality similar to DHCP (including per
host prefixes/options)
how long before options are added so SLAAC becomes an alternative to
DHCPv6 ?
The goal is not to come up with an alternative to DHCPv6. The
- the network never knows when a host detaches, because the host does not
send a goodbye RS. As a result, if a prefix were allocated by the network
for the
host, it cannot be returned to a free prefix pool based on signaling from the
host.
Are you planning to collect unused prefix based on an
...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
Droms
Sent: September-08-10 2:27 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: Narten Thomas; IPv6 WG Mailing List; Suresh Krishnan
Subject: Re: New version available (Was Re: Consensus call on
adopting:draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt)
Joel - only some operators have decided
Hi Woj,
On 10-09-08 04:16 PM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
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
Hi Julien,
On 10-09-08 07:43 PM, Laganier, Julien wrote:
Thomas Narten wrote:
[...]
Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com writes:
[...]
Now, operators wanted to offer IPv6 service. I hope we think that is a
good thing. For residential, they looked at what they could count on
from the
Hi Shree,
On 10-09-09 06:23 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
Suresh,
There are still unanswered questions..
Comments inline ...
--
Shree
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com]
[..snip..]
1. Prefix Lifetime
Hi Shree,
On 10-09-09 06:46 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
Suresh,
5. Creating an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
One SLAAC is defined to do functionality similar to DHCP (including per
host prefixes/options)
how long before options are added so SLAAC becomes
Hi Shree,
On 10-09-09 07:45 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
- the network never knows when a host detaches, because the host does not
send a goodbye RS. As a result, if a prefix were allocated by the network for
the
host, it cannot be returned to a free prefix pool based
On 09/07/2010 06:38 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
5. Creating an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
One SLAAC is defined to do functionality similar to DHCP (including
per host prefixes/options) how long before options are added so SLAAC
becomes an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
This is
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:20:45 -0400
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Suresh,
Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com writes:
The nodes attached to different subscriber lines cannot directly send
packets to each other. They need to talk through the edge router.
How is this
Hi Shree,
Thanks for the comments. Please find responses inline.
On 10-09-07 09:38 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
Suresh,
One of the main challenge in implementing the model proposed by the draft
is that edge router has no reliable indication if a host (once it has sent
Hi Doug,
On 10-09-08 02:02 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 09/07/2010 06:38 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
5. Creating an alternative to DHCPv6 ?
One SLAAC is defined to do functionality similar to DHCP (including
per host prefixes/options) how long before options are added so
Hi Mark,
On 10-09-08 05:50 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:20:45 -0400
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Suresh,
Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com writes:
The nodes attached to different subscriber lines cannot directly send
packets to each other. They need to
Nit: seems unlikely to me you will have any XP devices running IPv6-only; if my
understanding of the situation is correct, such a device requires manual
installation of the IPv6 stack and still requires IPv4 for DNS.
- Ralph
On Sep 8, 2010, at 5:36 PM 9/8/10, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Doug,
Hi Suresh,
Please see two comments below:
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Shree,
Thanks for the comments. Please find responses inline.
On 10-09-07 09:38 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
Suresh,
One of the main challenge in implementing the model proposed by the
Ralph,
I use IPv6 in XP so I can confirm your suspicion on both counts.
IPv6-only is a non-starter for XP.
Suresh,
I understand your goals quite well, which is why I'm opposed to the
adoption of the draft. :) Since practically Day 1 of the IPv6 effort
there has been a movement to make
Doug, I am confused by your comments.
Let me describe how I understand the situation. We claimed, when we
crafted IPv6, that hosts did not need to use DHCP for address
assignment. As such, many host stacks did not use DHCP for address
assignment.
Now, operators wanted to offer IPv6
Your message is very carefully crafted rhetorically, for which I credit
you with many style points. In terms of standards development less so,
but I'll take everything you say here at face value just in case.
On 09/08/2010 11:01 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
Doug, I am confused by your comments.
Joel - only some operators have decided that they need to allow for the corner
case of an IPv6-capable device with no DHCPv6 connected directly to the SP
network. CableLabs took the approach of mandating DHCPv6 for any device
connected to a cable SP network; the expectation being that a high
Hi Ralph,
On 10-09-08 12:17 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Nit: seems unlikely to me you will have any XP devices running IPv6-only; if my
understanding of the situation is correct, such a device requires manual
installation of the IPv6 stack and still requires IPv4 for DNS.
You are absolutely
Hi Julien,
On 10-09-08 12:32 PM, Laganier, Julien wrote:
Hi Suresh,
Please see two comments below:
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Shree,
Thanks for the comments. Please find responses inline.
On 10-09-07 09:38 AM, JOSHI, SHRINIVAS ASHOK (SHRINIVAS ASHOK) wrote:
Suresh,
One of the main
Hi Doug,
On 10-09-08 02:16 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Meanwhile, please provide examples of any OS with greater than 5% market
share that is capable of v6-only operation without the ability to do
DHCPv6.
I don't think anybody here claimed IPv6-only operation. The BBF network
in question is
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 Wed, 8 Sep 2010 11:45:34 -0400
Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi Mark,
On 10-09-08 05:50 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:20:45 -0400
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Suresh,
Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com writes:
The
Thomas Narten wrote:
[...]
Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com writes:
[...]
Now, operators wanted to offer IPv6 service. I hope we think that is a
good thing. For residential, they looked at what they could count on
from the hosts. And some of them concluded that they could
On Wed, 2010-09-08 at 10:29 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
I use IPv6 in XP so I can confirm your suspicion on both counts.
IPv6-only is a non-starter for XP.
You do need IPv6 and IPv4 on the XP host, but the host can exist in an
IPv6-only network if you put an IPv6-capable nameserver on the host
] On Behalf Of Suresh
Krishnan
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 12:27 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: New version available (Was Re: Consensus call on
adopting:draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt)
Hi Thomas
Hi Thomas,
On 10-08-26 08:50 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Let me ask some additional clarification questions.
Figure 1 contains both Hosts and RGs (residential gateways).
Is it a requirement that there be a single RG at each customer site,
and that RG then connects to the AN?
In other words, is
Suresh,
Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com writes:
The nodes attached to different subscriber lines cannot directly send
packets to each other. They need to talk through the edge router.
How is this enforced? If I happen to know the mac address of my
neighbor's router (or host),
Let me ask some additional clarification questions.
Figure 1 contains both Hosts and RGs (residential gateways).
Is it a requirement that there be a single RG at each customer site,
and that RG then connects to the AN?
In other words, is the Edge Router sending RAs only to the RG, and is
it the
Hi Suresh.
Thanks for the revised document. It is much clearer now.
Some followup questions.
1) in Figure 1, it would help to explain whether everything to the
left of the edge router is in the same broadcast domain. I.e, all
nodes attached to the network can send packets directly to each
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for going over the new version so quickly.
On 10-08-25 09:03 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
Hi Suresh.
Thanks for the revised document. It is much clearer now.
Some followup questions.
1) in Figure 1, it would help to explain whether everything to the
left of the edge router is
Hi Thomas/Brian,
I submitted a new revision with the changes you requested. Can you
please look over the new revision available at
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-07.txt
and let me know if it addresses your concerns
Thanks
Suresh
On 10-08-20 04:56 PM, Thomas Narten
41 matches
Mail list logo
