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
- [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Jari Arkko
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Junghoon Jee
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Basavaraj Patil
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Junghoon Jee
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Syam Madanapalli
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Jari Arkko
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Junghoon Jee
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Junghoon Jee
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Syam Madanapalli
- RE: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Premec, Domagoj
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Jari Arkko
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Junghoon Jee
- RE: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval John.zhao
- Re: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval Alexandru Petrescu
- RE: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval John.zhao
- RE: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval keshav.chawla
- RE: [16NG] ipv6 over ipv6cs document approval John.zhao