[16NG] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals

Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net> Sun, 09 September 2007 18:23 UTC

Return-path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IURRO-0002pr-DQ; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 14:23:26 -0400
Received: from 16ng by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IURRN-0002ou-Lt for 16ng-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 14:23:25 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IURRN-0002np-Ae for 16ng@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 14:23:25 -0400
Received: from p130.piuha.net ([193.234.218.130]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IURRM-0001Zr-O2 for 16ng@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Sep 2007 14:23:25 -0400
Received: from p130.piuha.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BE6519865E; Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:23:23 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (p130.piuha.net [193.234.218.130]) by p130.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4F7E19865C; Sun, 9 Sep 2007 21:23:22 +0300 (EEST)
Message-ID: <46E43A1B.4000908@piuha.net>
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:23:23 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Syam Madanapalli <smadanapalli@gmail.com>
References: <46E41404.7090504@piuha.net> <10e14db20709091018u7ff74707qa06dcb8c33e1fbaa@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <10e14db20709091018u7ff74707qa06dcb8c33e1fbaa@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 52f7a77164458f8c7b36b66787c853da
Cc: 16ng@ietf.org, draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals@tools.ietf.org
Subject: [16NG] Re: AD review of draft-ietf-16ng-ps-goals
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org

Syam,

Thanks for your quick response.

> As far as Ethernet is concerned, I think, running IEEE 802.1D is obvious.
> The intention here is to explicitly mention that the native multicast is not
> available and may need mechanisms like IEEE 802.1D.
>   

Yes -- please state so in the document instead of referring to
fundamental problems that in the end aren't true problems.

> A host using IPCS cannot send ARP packets over IEEE 802.16 connections.
> Of course, ARP is not required in this case.
>   

Then first you have to take the IPv6 part out.

Secondly, I recall some discussion months ago about DNAv4
and ARP filtering. What was the conclusion?

>>>    Because MAC address is not used for transmission in case of IP CS, it
>>>    is unclear whether source link layer address need to be carried in
>>>    the RS (Router Solicitation).  The RS may need to have source IP
>>>    address specified so that the RA (Router Advertisement) can be sent
>>>    back.  This may require the completion of the link local address
>>>    configuration before sending an RS.
>>>       
>> Why would you need the source address? This is the point-to-point
>> link model...
>>     
>
> Earlier, we have been thinking about shared link model. 

Yes, but this is under Section 5.2 (point to point model).

> Also, IEEE 802.16
> requires IP address for establishing MAC connections. To overcome this,
> WiMAX forum defined Initial Service Flow (ISF) which can be used for NDP.
>   

That's OK, but if that is so, there does not seem to be any problem
with the RS.

>>> If there
>>>    exists multiple ARs (so the default routers), it is unknown if the
>>>    NUD is required if an AR is not serving any 802.16 MAC connection.
>>>       
>> How can you have multiple devices at the end, if this is a
>> point-to-point link?
>>     
>
> Now, point-to-point link model is chosen, so this does not hold good.
>   

Ok, lets change the document so it correspond to the current
model.

> And yes, we need to rewrite the text for these.
>   

Thanks.

Jari



_______________________________________________
16NG mailing list
16NG@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng