: Thursday, August 24, 2006 6:06 PM
To: Templin, Fred L; Rao Satyanarayana-W60007; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
Fred,
>OK, I see now. When Tim first contacted me he came >across with a
certain sense of naivety
If you wish to
Just to be clear (and I know you're aware of this, Tony), "lack of code" is
a provably invalid argument in support of developing an alternative to
DHCPv6 PD. It is simply not true to say that DHCPv6 PD is not implemented
and has not been deployed. There are multiple server implementations
availab
On Aug 24, 2006, at 11:11 PM, ext Jari Arkko wrote:
Tim,
Its probably best if you now update your draft with a better
description
of what scenario you are looking at, details about the customers
requirements, justification of why new work is needed, and an analysis
of why existing solutions
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
> p
Correcting somewhat what I said earlier, the proposal calls
for not only RS/RA modifications but also three new ICMPv6
error messages/codes, and one new notification message which
carrys prefixes using the PIO format.
But, as I said earlier, it is not just about RS/RA in its
current manifestation.
, Fred L; Rao Satyanarayana-W60007; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
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
>From: Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/25 Fri AM 01:11:55 CDT
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>Tim,
>
>Its probably best if you now update your draft with a better description
>of
Tim,
Its probably best if you now update your draft with a better description
of what scenario you are looking at, details about the customers
requirements, justification of why new work is needed, and an analysis
of why existing solutions are inappropriate or undesirable in your
scenario. This ha
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
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 l
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 Maili
]>, 'IETF IPv6
Mailing List'
Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In some cases, customers may wish to have an alternative to
the existing mechanism (WHY they wish to have it is a
separate question, THAT they do is an issue which helped
inform the writ
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
---
>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]>,
>From: "Templin, Fred L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/23 Wed PM 07:12:23 CDT
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: RE: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>Tim,
>
>I took a look at the I-D and it reads well.
Hi Fred, thanks.
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
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-
August 24, 2006 11:04 AM
> To: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Bernie Volz (volz)
> Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>
> Ralph Droms (rdroms) wrote:
> > Alexandru - you've used a phrase that I still don't
> understand. What
> >
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
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 Pet
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 termin
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 understand
> -Original Message-
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: RE: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>
> Tim,
>
> I took a look at the I-D and it
> 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 poss
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
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> We do not create alternative ways to >do the same thing, because
>> doing so will burden >implementors with additional complexity and
>&
age-
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:12 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: RE: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>
> Tim,
>
> I took a look at the I-D and it reads well. I see that y
; Durand, Alain; IETF
> IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>
> 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
>
[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 sta
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 ICMPv6
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In some cases, customers may wish to have an alternative to the
existing mechanism (WHY they wish to have it is a separate
question, THAT they do is an issue which helped inform the
writing of our draft).
I am not opposed to doing something different, but there needs to
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 focu
n'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
'IETF IPv6 Mailing List'
>Subject: RE: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Tim - SLAAC and DHCPv6 are fundamentally different ways to assign
>> >addresses.
>>
>> Ralph th
Tim,
I took a look at the I-D and it reads well. I see that you
(and the co-authors) are asking RSs to carry PIOs by way of
requesting specific prefixes, and that you are asking for new
flag bits (the 'P' bit in the RS message 'Reserved' field and
the 'D' bit in the PIO 'Reserved1' field) which wo
Rao Satyanarayana wrote:
> ...
> What we would like to know now is are there any bugs in the proposal
> being specified?
Routers do not currently *send* RS messages.
Bug == "ICMPv6 is an integral part of the IPv6 stack and
hence the proposed mechanism for Prefix Delegation does not require
>From: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/23 Wed AM 06:23:39 CDT
>To: "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mai
>From: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/23 Wed AM 05:43:09 CDT
>To: "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Ma
>From: Rao Satyanarayana-W60007 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/23 Wed PM 05:54:07 CDT
>To: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: RE: Prefix Delegation
>From: Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/23 Wed AM 07:24:59 CDT
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>Tim,
>
>>Given that there is a historical prece
age-
> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:31 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Durand, Alain; IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>
> Tim - The answer to your exact question is, of course, yes.
&g
Tim - The answer to your exact question is, of course, yes. But, in
my opinion, that question is not the right starting point for our
conversation.
A better question to start with, which we certainly ought to ask as
members of an engineering organization like the IETF, is: "Is there a
su
>From: Ole Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/23 Wed AM 12:57:16 CDT
>To: Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>I don't understand the rationale for this work either.
Hi Ole, thanks
OTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>From: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 10:31:10 CDT
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Syam Madanapalli
On 8/23/06, Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Also, the subnet model that NetLMM WG wants to choose is to have
>> a unique prefix for each MN.
>
Having a unique prefix for each MN is not the same as a
requirement to perform prefix delegation.
I am not sure if there is any difference as
I think another point is that if they're concerned about having to run a
separate DHCPv6 client "process" to handle PD (as was I think discussed
in an earlier email), there's nothing in the DHCPv6 specification that
says you can not implement DHCPv6 in the IPv6 kernel. If PD is integral
to your net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Tim - SLAAC and DHCPv6 are fundamentally different ways to assign
> >addresses.
>
> Ralph thanks, I'm glad you (realize that) see my point. There is more than
> one IETF standardized way to do host addressing. Do you believe it is
> good that more than one IETF standar
Syam - I'm feeling really dense at this point. I don't understand
"unique prefix for host" and assigning the unique prefix for each
host between the CPE and the subscriber PC. In your scenario, what
devices participate in PD in the diagram I included? Is there a
description of the scenar
From: "Jari Arkko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Syam Madanapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "IETF IPv6 Mailing List"
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICM
Hello Ralph,
On 8/23/06, Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Questions in line...
- Ralph
On Aug 23, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/23/06, Ole Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I don't understand the rationale for this work either.
>>
>> the first PD proposal (b
4 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Durand, Alain; IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>
> Some more detailed responses in line...
>
> - Ralph
>
> On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:25 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
IPv6
PD, NOT a replacement for the existing mechanism). FWIW, please see
comments in-line:
From: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 09:12:21 CDT
To: Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: RE: Prefix Delegati
Tim,
>Given that there is a historical precedent for being able to do something via
>more than one standardized IETF way, I'd suggest that IPv6 PD is another such
>case where such an approach is warranted.
>...
>I'd like to repeat my/our contention that ICMPv6 PD is not meant to replace
>DHCPv6
>> Also, the subnet model that NetLMM WG wants to choose is to have
>> a unique prefix for each MN.
>
Having a unique prefix for each MN is not the same as a
requirement to perform prefix delegation. Netlmm hosts
are required to work with existing stacks, and I would
generally expect them to use
Questions in line...
- Ralph
On Aug 23, 2006, at 3:54 AM, Syam Madanapalli wrote:
Hi,
On 8/23/06, Ole Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't understand the rationale for this work either.
the first PD proposal (by Brian Haberman) was indeed based on using
ICMP as transport. separate messa
Also, the subnet model that NetLMM WG wants to choose is to have
a unique prefix for each MN.
What is a "prefix"? In IPv6 it can be anywhere between /1 and
/127. (If it's longer than /64 it means you aren't using
ND, but ND is additional to the basic IPv6 architecture).
NetLMM is indeed usin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 11:04:04 CDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006, Syam Madanapalli wrote:
Hi,
On 8/23/06, Ole Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't understand the rationale for this work either.
the first PD proposal (by Brian Haberman) was indeed based on using
ICMP as transport. separate message types instead of
piggy-backing o
Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> Currently DHCP mechanism works only between routers whereas this
> new mechanism works for end hosts.
The difference between a router and a host is a routing process and a
willingness to forward packets, not how it interprets ICMP or whether it
can parse DHCP.
Eliot
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 10:31:10 CDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: RE: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
Thanks for the quick
Hi,
On 8/23/06, Ole Troan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't understand the rationale for this work either.
the first PD proposal (by Brian Haberman) was indeed based on using
ICMP as transport. separate message types instead of
piggy-backing on RS/RA though. as we continued to develop that
mec
>From: Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 11:04:04 CDT
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Prefix Delegatio
I don't understand the rationale for this work either.
the first PD proposal (by Brian Haberman) was indeed based on using
ICMP as transport. separate message types instead of
piggy-backing on RS/RA though. as we continued to develop that
mechanism we realised that we were pretty much reinventing
TED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>Hi Alain,
>
>Thanks for the quick e-mail. As one of the co-authors, I'd in turn like to
>reply (and state that ICMPv6 PD is ANOTHER way to do IPv6 PD, NOT a
>replacement for
t;
>Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 09:12:21 CDT
>To: Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
> "Currently proposed solution for IPv6 Prefix Delegation is based on
> DHCPv6 protocol. We believe that in
OTECTED]> wrote:
From: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 10:31:10 CDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
Subject: RE: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
Thanks for the quick e-mai
>From: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 10:31:10 CDT
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: RE: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>
>> Thanks for the qui
> Thanks for the quick e-mail. As one of the co-authors, I'd in
> turn like to reply (and state that ICMPv6 PD is ANOTHER way
> to do IPv6 PD, NOT a replacement for the existing mechanism).
> FWIW, please see comments in-line:
This is probably the crux of the issue. I believe that having
mult
"Currently proposed solution for IPv6 Prefix Delegation is based on
DHCPv6 protocol. We believe that in certain network topologies and
configurations where the CPE routers may not be capable or configured
to use DHCPv6 and hence can not utilize the currently proposed ipv6
prefix dele
A new draft has been published for prefix delegation using ICMPv6.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rao-ipv6-prefix-delegation-00.txt
Please review and provide comments/suggestions.
Thanks,
Syam
IETF IPv6 working
draft-arunt-prefix-delegation-using-icmpv6-00.txt is an interesting approach
to prefix delegation. Looking at it objectively, it appears to me that this
protocol largely duplicates the prefix delegation functions in RFC 3633, at
an approximately equivalent cost in message exchanges and
Arun,
before I write up a few comments I'd like to remark that I don't like
the idea of delegating prefixes using ICMPv6 because I don't see how
this offers different/better/more versatile features compared to
DHCPv6-PD. Especially since you need a state machinery or cache for this
mechanism to ma
Hello All,
We've submitted a draft that describes a mechanism for Prefix Delegation
using ICMPv6 by satisfying the requirements mentioned in Requirements
for IPv6 prefix delegation
(draft-ietf-ipv6-prefix-delegation-requirement-04.txt) ..
Do let us know your comments and suggestions o
72 matches
Mail list logo
