Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval

"Syam Madanapalli" <smadanapalli@gmail.com> Fri, 23 November 2007 10:04 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 1IvVP2-0000UZ-Md; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:04:52 -0500
Received: from 16ng by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IvVP2-0000UU-7C for 16ng-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:04:52 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IvVP1-0000UM-Tx for 16ng@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:04:51 -0500
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.190]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IvVOx-0002dJ-U6 for 16ng@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:04:51 -0500
Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id l15so2350397rvb for <16ng@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:04:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=7VfCAXKiWLB14qIwY2RxJxpcCSs9mdSyL11RY88q8QE=; b=XDroji+Q3uEgY7dId52YT5N+eUUPPcgShgcDggk2oULbkEwYf3TIIRPsc4VmDrQROJ9h6LNd/dxUIDeMTHLxPb90UZWT/BqSJ30n4dmPfZ7veVpKaGe1kMxNeXMVnp9u0IVydG9bSnZdaImicG9+kEDV+wH6PJqQvhe7bsA4B1Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=qveCsAvouvfACQPBB3bPhETO9LARgOsSYjL3z67HgpTFObB6OVW3Nxy8cuG1kSypbyINYOBRqmhyuZYs2J1eeRRGH4YKAbtt6VHKHN6PElu9QudoW6v8C5kbGH+kZlo2lcJdl/RMrjAHOzg/4yauIEGM2Tc+izSvnN5Yjt11pHE=
Received: by 10.141.68.12 with SMTP id v12mr4374221rvk.1195812287188; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.141.48.19 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Nov 2007 02:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <10e14db20711230204m13b7555emcf6cbf30f19da0ff@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 15:34:47 +0530
From: Syam Madanapalli <smadanapalli@gmail.com>
To: Junghoon Jee <junghoon.jee@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval
In-Reply-To: <d47344770711230155k2676cc6bsa07f7e7bb2159918@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <d47344770711220101y3597825fnaeb77e155ce12a06@mail.gmail.com> <C36BC142.4C82B%basavaraj.patil@nsn.com> <d47344770711230155k2676cc6bsa07f7e7bb2159918@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 827a2a57ca7ab0837847220f447e8d56
Cc: 16ng@ietf.org
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

ND just runs normally on IPv6CS, similar to any p2p link.

-Syam

On Nov 23, 2007 3:25 PM, Junghoon Jee <junghoon.jee@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Raj,
>
> >One of the reasons for choosing a PtP link model is to avoid the issues
> related to ND.
>
> Multilink subnet issues are the main reason of that.
>
> >Because of the PtP link type there is no question about an MS being
> transitioned out of Idle mode because of ND.
>
> So, we should not send neighbor discovery packets in case of the IPv6CS?
>
> >The document does not need to specify anything further regarding ND.
>
> Junghoon
>
> 2007/11/23, Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil@nsn.com>:
>
> >
> >
> > One of the reasons for choosing a PtP link model is to avoid the issues
> related to ND.
> > Because of the PtP link type there is no question about an MS being
> transitioned out of Idle mode because of ND.
> > The document does not need to specify anything further regarding ND.
> >
> > -Raj
> >
> >
> >
> > On 11/22/07 3:01 AM, "ext Junghoon Jee" < junghoon.jee@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Jari,
> >
> > I agree to apply the suggested changes.
> >
> > Let me share my unsolved question regarding how to deal with neighbor
> discovery packets for IPv6CS case.
> >
> > Do we have to block neighbor discovery packets not to wake up idle/sleep
> SSs ? Or,
> > Do we have to let them delivered in that p2p link not to break the NUD
> model?
> > Is there no need to specify about that in this document?
> >
> > BR,
> > Junghoon
> >
> >
> > 2007/11/22, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>:
> >
> >
> >
> > We're trying to close the remaining issues and approve
> > the current document.
> >
> > The current proposal is what we have in the draft, with
> > the following changes. If there is any concern with
> > these changes, let me know as soon as possible.
> >
> > There are a few editorial changes. The substantive
> > changes are clarifying MTU rules in the presence
> > of tunneling on the BS side, and strengthening
> > the requirements related to interoperability.
> >
> > ----
> >
> > Please change in Section 8.1:
> >
> > OLD:
> >    The use of router advertisements as a means for movement detection is
> >    not recommended for MNs connected via 802.16 links as the frequency
> >    of periodic router advertisements can be high.
> > NEW:
> >    The use of router advertisements as a means for movement detection is
> >    not recommended for MNs connected via 802.16 links as the frequency
> >    of periodic router advertisements would have to be high.
> >
> > Please add new text at the end of Section 4 (just before 4.1),
> > these are the new paragraphs:
> >
> >    In any case, the MS and BS MUST negotiate at most one
> >    convergence sublayer for IPv6 transport on a given link.
> >
> >    In addition, to ensure interoperability between devices that
> >    support different encapsulations, it is REQUIRED that BS
> >    implementations support all standards track encapsulations
> >    defined for 802.16 by the IETF. At the time of writing this
> >    specification, this is the only encapsulation, but additional
> >    specifications are being worked on. It is, however, not
> >    required that the BS implementations use all the encapsulations
> >    they support; some modes of operation may be off by
> >    configuration.
> >
> > Change in Appendix D:
> >
> > OLD:
> >    It is
> >    recommended that the default MTU for IPv6 be set to 1400 octets for
> >    the MS in WiMAX networks.
> > NEW:
> >    It is recommended that the MTU for IPv6 be set to 1400 octets in
> >    WiMAX networks, and this value (different from the default)
> >    be communicated to the MS.
> >
> > Change Section 6.3 to:
> >
> >   The MTU value for IPv6 packets on an 802.16 link is configurable.
> >   The default MTU for IPv6 packets over an 802.16 link SHOULD be 1500
> >   octets.
> >
> >   The 802.16 MAC PDU (Protocol Data Unit) is composed of a 6 byte
> >   header followed by an optional payload and an optional CRC covering
> >   the header and the payload.  The length of the PDU is indicated by
> >   the Len parameter in the Generic MAC Header.  The Len parameter has a
> >   size of 11 bits.  Hence the total MAC PDU size is 2048 bytes.  The
> >   IPv6 payload size can vary.  In certain deployment scenarios the MTU
> >   value can be greater than the default.  Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
> >   [RFC4861] defines an MTU option that an AR MUST advertise, via router
> >   advertisement (RA) if a value different from 1500 is used.
> >   If an AR advertises an
> >   MTU via the RA MTU option, the MN SHOULD use the MTU from the RA.
> >   Nodes that implement Path MTU discovery [RFC1981] MAY use the
> >   mechanism to determine the MTU for the IPv6 packets.
> >
> > In the abstract:
> >    s/fxed/fixed/
> >
> > In section 6.1:
> >    s/it is recommended that a tunnel is established/it is recommended
> >    that a tunnel be established/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 16NG mailing list
> > 16NG@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng  <
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> > 16NG mailing list
> > 16NG@ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 16NG mailing list
> 16NG@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
>
>


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