> Just I mentioned in previous email, SLAAC is optional WiMAX deployment.
The attempt to create an access network without RA/RS is nothing new.
Other (e.g., DSL, PON) access network technologies have considered this and
determined that the biggest missing piece is route info. Which is the reason
012 11:40 PM
> To: Xiayangsong
> Cc: Ole Trøan; Sheng Jiang; WG; IPv6 List
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
>
> But all IPv6 nodes are required to support SLAAC and all
> routers are required to generate RAs. What is the meaning
>
> There is no ND at all, that is, no NA/NS/RA/RS etc.
the document you references states that ND is used like for any other IPv6 link.
where do you get the "no ND" from?
as a thought experiment, how would a link without ND function?
how do you do router discovery, and address resolution?
> You c
com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 11:40 PM
To: Xiayangsong
Cc: Ole Trøan; Sheng Jiang; WG; IPv6 List
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
But all IPv6 nodes are required to support SLAAC and all
routers are required to generate RAs. What is the
:48 AM
To: Xiayangsong
Cc: Sheng Jiang; WG; IPv6 List
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
Hi,
> I am a little bit confused what we are talking about.
> Our draft is necessary when there is no SLAAC.
>
> Could you elaborate your viewpoints?
th
>> I am a little bit confused what we are talking about.
>> Our draft is necessary when there is no SLAAC.
>>
>> Could you elaborate your viewpoints?
>
>the PIO option in RA has several functions.
>
>1) with the A-flag on, it is used by SLAAC.
>2) with the L-flag on, it is used for onlink determina
On Dec 12, 2012, at 2:04 PM 12/12/12, Tim Chown wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2012, at 18:48, Ole Trøan wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> I am a little bit confused what we are talking about.
>>> Our draft is necessary when there is no SLAAC.
>>>
>>> Could you elaborate your viewpoints?
>>
>> the PIO option in R
On 12 Dec 2012, at 18:48, Ole Trøan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I am a little bit confused what we are talking about.
>> Our draft is necessary when there is no SLAAC.
>>
>> Could you elaborate your viewpoints?
>
> the PIO option in RA has several functions.
>
> 1) with the A-flag on, it is used by SLA
Hi,
> I am a little bit confused what we are talking about.
> Our draft is necessary when there is no SLAAC.
>
> Could you elaborate your viewpoints?
the PIO option in RA has several functions.
1) with the A-flag on, it is used by SLAAC.
2) with the L-flag on, it is used for onlink determinatio
On Dec 12, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> But all IPv6 nodes are required to support SLAAC and all
> routers are required to generate RAs. What is the meaning
> of "no SLAAC"?
A router advertisement that doesn't offer any prefixes where stateless
autoconfiguration is enabled?
--
Sheng Jiang
> Cc: WG; IPv6 List
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
>
> Sheng,
>
>>>>> I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a
>>>>> DHCPv6-managed network without ND is flawed.
>
, December 12, 2012 5:10 PM
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: WG; IPv6 List
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
Sheng,
>>>> I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a
>>>> DHCPv6-managed network without ND is flawed.
>>>>
Sheng,
I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a
DHCPv6-managed network without ND is flawed.
ND is required for router discovery, neighbour discovery etc anyway. and a
router on the link must be configured
with the onlink prefix regardless.
>>>
>-Original Message-
>From: Ole Trøan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:39 PM
>To: Sheng Jiang
>Cc: WG; IPv6 List
>Subject: Re: Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
>
>Sheng,
>
>>> I think the argum
Sheng,
>> I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a
>> DHCPv6-managed network without ND is flawed.
>> ND is required for router discovery, neighbour discovery etc anyway. and a
>> router on the link must be configured
>> with the onlink prefix regardless.
>>
>> while we can
: Sheng Jiang; WG; IPv6 List
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review of draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
> - we shouldn't create new DHCPv6 options with T1/T2 timers. those should be
> put in a separate option
> Frank=>Please give me a link so that I could check the "SHOULDN&
> - we shouldn't create new DHCPv6 options with T1/T2 timers. those should be
> put in a separate option
> Frank=>Please give me a link so that I could check the "SHOULDN'T" rule.
wouldn't go as far as claiming it is a "SHOULD NOT".
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issue
draft "Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6"
Sheng,
> Back in Atlanta, in DHC WG meeting, you said you would review the document.
> Could you give the comments?
I knew that would come back and haunt me. ;)
comments below. also included dhc and 6man
>> Draft: Prefi
Hi Ole,
> in general I think the use case presented is already supported by DHCPv6
> address assignment; the client puts
> the addresses it desire as hints in the IA_NA option in DHCPv6 requests.
>
> I think the argument given in the draft for operators wanting a
> DHCPv6-managed network withou
Sheng,
> Back in Atlanta, in DHC WG meeting, you said you would review the document.
> Could you give the comments?
I knew that would come back and haunt me. ;)
comments below. also included dhc and 6man
>> Draft: Prefix Assignment in DHCPv6
>> Presenter: Sheng Jiang
>> URL:http://
20 matches
Mail list logo
