: 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
[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 what scenario you are looking at, detai
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 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation u
>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'
>Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using
>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
> -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
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
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
>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 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>Some m
gt;> spec (RFC 3633), and IPv6 PD requirements spec (RFC 3769).
>>
>> If only DHCPv6 PD is to be standardized by the IETF, please explain
>> why RFC 3769 was ever written.
>>
>> To me, implicit in the publication of 3769 is the notion that ANY
>> mecha
>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 using ICMPv6
Satya,
You put this so much bet
>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 precedent for being able to do something via
>>m
>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 for the reply. Sorry it took me so
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>
>> IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>>
>>>Subject: RE: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
>>
>>
>>>>Thanks for the quick e-mail. As one of the co-authors, I'd in
>>>>turn like to reply (and state that ICMP
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
69 was written in the first place.
Best Regards,
Tim
Rom 8:28
>
>- Ralph
>
>On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:48 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> From: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> Date: 2006/08/22 Tue PM 10:31:10 CDT
>>> To: [EMAI
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
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 the existing mechanism). FWIW, please see comments in-line:
>From: "Durand, Alain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/08/22 Tue P
>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
27 matches
Mail list logo
