;Erik Nordmark'
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; 'Suresh Krishnan'
Subject: RE: Off-link and on-link
>
> I am getting back to replying to some emails that were sent > in
response > to our drafts. I did explain what an aggregation router was
> when we met > face to face at IETF
data forwarding and on-and-off-link.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:19 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Hesham Soliman; Erik Nordmark; IPV6 List
Mailing; Suresh Krishnan
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 9:30 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Erik Nordmark; ipv6@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan; Ralph Droms
(rdroms)
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
Hemant - From RFC 4861, I interpret the definition of "prefix list
I as a host WILL NOT send
> traffic
> to the default router because I cannot assume off-link.
>
> Hemant
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 8:21 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant); 'E
mant Singh (shemant); 'Erik Nordmark'
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; 'Suresh Krishnan'
Subject: RE: Off-link and on-link
I know how to configure off-link on a router. I was asking the >
community. At least the people we pinged in the past in the
community >
didn't kno
rdroms); Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: 'Erik Nordmark'; 'IPV6 List Mailing'; 'Suresh Krishnan'
Subject: RE: Off-link and on-link
To give a little more detail to that implementation bug, it > seems
the > host implementation inferred an on-link prefix from an
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:29 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
>
> Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> > Suresh,
> >
> > At least our drafts do not ask for a new off
n-and-off-link draft separately.
Thanks.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 5:32 PM
To: Ralph Droms (rdroms); Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: 'Erik Nordmark'; 'IPV6 List Mailing'; 'Suresh Krishnan
many MUST's that we'd
like to keep.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 1:12 PM
To: Hesham Soliman; Erik Nordmark
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan
Subject: RE: Off-link and on-link
Hesham,
This is what you have said be
7;
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; 'Suresh Krishnan'
Subject: RE: Off-link and on-link
> I know how to configure off-link on a router. I was asking the >
community. At least the people we pinged in the past in the community >
didn't know how or didn't reply including Hesham.
>
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:29 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Suresh,
>
> At least our drafts do not ask for a new off-link flag. Without a new
> off-li
k Nordmark; IPV6 List Mailing; Suresh Krishnan
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
To give a little more detail to that implementation bug, it seems the
host implementation inferred an on-link prefix from an address assigned
through DHCPv6. We believe the implementation carried over
IPv4 behavior, in
: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 2:49 PM
To: Francis Dupont
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Erik Nordmark; IPV6 List Mailing; Suresh
Krishnan
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
Francis - In my opinion, the important problem scenario is when the host
has no on-link prefix information AND the host has no default
hread.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 6:37 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Suresh Krishnan
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
Hemant and I met this afternoon and he explained the details of what
th
Hemant and I met this afternoon and he explained the details of what
they've observed, which helped me a lot more than the discussion in the
WG meeting.
Based on this I think I understand the root cause of why some
implementors get some things wrong.
The IPv6 subnet model is quite differen
; Hemant
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 1:46 PM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
>
> Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote
ything in the interpretation of the text above from RFC
4861. This text is not clear.
Thanks.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 1:46 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re:
Francis - In my opinion, the important problem scenario is when the
host has no on-link prefix information AND the host has no default
router. This is most likely to happen when there are no RAs (likely
because there is no router on the link), and can also happen when
there are no default
As you've already entered in this topics, according to DHCPv6 address
assignment users the current situation where on links without RAs or
with RAs without PIOs can be solved into two bad ways:
- assume a 128 bit prefix length: not incorrect but surely inefficient
so often qualified as stupid
-
ishnan
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
To give a little more detail to that implementation bug, it seems the
host implementation inferred an on-link prefix from an address assigned
through DHCPv6. We believe the implementation carried over
IPv4 behavior, in which it's common to pass on-link pr
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Good question, Erik. To the best of my knowledge such an RFC does not
exist - at least describing total details of an aggregation router -
like unicast, mcast, and anycast data forwarding rules etc. The closest
I have found in IETF is what IETF calls as multi-link r
or a Turing machine to signal off-link.
> >
> > Hemant
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:29 PM
> > To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> > Cc: Suresh Krishnan; i
link.
I was looking for a Turing machine to signal off-link.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:29 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
Hemant Singh (she
You've answered the question :) So what's the problem? As you said, this is
very unlikely but there is a solution for it below.
Hesham
> -Original Message-
> From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 5:01 AM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject:
uring machine to signal off-link.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:29 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Suresh,
ssage-
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:29 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Suresh,
>
> At least our drafts do not ask for a new off-link
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Suresh,
At least our drafts do not ask for a new off-link flag. Without a new
off-link flag your scenario will have to go with (a). But do note,
aggregation routers do not send Redirects. So the scenario below cannot
be even supported on aggregation routers.
Which
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Hesham/Dave/Erik,
I am not taking a stand on whether an explicit off-link flag is
necessary/useful or not, but I have encountered a scenario where the existing
algorithm specified in RFC4861 does not work very well. Let's say a router
wants to signal to the clients
Suresh,
At least our drafts do not ask for a new off-link flag. Without a new
off-link flag your scenario will have to go with (a). But do note,
aggregation routers do not send Redirects. So the scenario below cannot
be even supported on aggregation routers.
Hemant
-Original Message-
Fr
29 matches
Mail list logo
