IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 5121: IP version 6 over WiMAX

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 03 December 2008 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F07D43A6B64; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:26:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83B153A6893; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:57:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.555, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-rpev9cECWb; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com (e3.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.143]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CEF3A67E9; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 07:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e3.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mB3FuT6w002741; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:56:29 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mB3FuwxU159766; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:56:58 -0500
Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mB3Fuwxq002815; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:56:58 -0500
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-65-212-155.mts.ibm.com [9.65.212.155]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mB3FuvL2002785 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:56:58 -0500
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id mB3FuuPJ004273; Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:56:56 -0500
Message-Id: <200812031556.mB3FuuPJ004273@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <4921D200.3070506@gmail.com>
References: <4BACF58443A3A04688976073775ABB2961B535@daebe102.NOE.Nokia.com> <f7c7d76e0811140119k7ca6a799oeefe0d8dc8111167@mail.gmail.com> <4920E121.5090102@gmail.com> <f7c7d76e0811171203q77763329m21c79469d56f5582@mail.gmail.com> <4921D200.3070506@gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> message dated "Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:20:16 +1300."
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:56:56 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:26:14 -0800
Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org, "16ng@ietf.org" <16ng@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 5121: IP version 6 over WiMAX
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org

Upleveling for a minute, why are we even including Link Layers in the
Node *Requirements* doc?

Clearly, we aren't *requiring* any of them, since choice of
appropriate L2s depends on the environment.

Indeed, draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02.txt says:

   4.  Sub-IP Layer

   An IPv6 node must include support for one or more IPv6 link-layer
   specifications.  Which link-layer specifications are included will
   depend upon what link-layers are supported by the hardware available
   on the system.  It is possible for a conformant IPv6 node to support
   IPv6 on some of its interfaces and not on others.

   As IPv6 is run over new layer 2 technologies, it is expected that new
   specifications will be issued.  This section highlights some major
   layer 2 technologies and is not intended to be complete.

And then goes on to say things like:

   4.1.  Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks - RFC 2464

   Nodes supporting IPv6 over Ethernet interfaces MUST implement
   Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Ethernet Networks [RFC2464].

   4.2.  IP version 6 over PPP - RFC 5072

   Nodes supporting IPv6 over PPP MUST implement IPv6 over PPP
   [RFC5072].

   4.3.  IPv6 over ATM Networks - RFC 2492

   Nodes supporting IPv6 over ATM Networks MUST implement IPv6 over ATM
   Networks [RFC2492].  Additionally, RFC 2492 states:

      A minimally conforming IPv6/ATM driver SHALL support the PVC mode
      of operation.  An IPv6/ATM driver that supports the full SVC mode
      SHALL also support PVC mode of operation.

So, as Pekka points out, the list is incomplete as is. And one might
wonder why ATM is listed over any other number of other L2s...

That said, I would suggest that having (in one place) a list of link
layers that IPv6 is defined to work over is useful. Not to require any
of them, but just to have a list of them all in one place.

How about removing all of the individual subections (4.1 - 4.3) and
add a simple table that lists the IPv6 over Foo documents that folk
might want to be aware of.

I agree with others that this document shouldn't be giving
stronger/different advice than is being given in other documents
already, so just providing pointers to those other documents seems
reasonable.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email