Re: Consensus call on adopting:draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-06.txt

[Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>]

On Aug 13, 2010, at 1:13 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:

> Hi Hemant,
>  Thanks for the comments. Please see responses inline
> 
> On 10-08-13 01:44 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
>> Right.  I proposed to encapsulate the return RA message since the
>> document proposes encapsulating the RS.  
> 
> The return RA message cannot be encapsulated as a large majority of the Access Nodes do not have an IPv6 address (or even an IP stack for that matter). They are performing some layer 3 functions without having a complete IP stack.
> 
>> We get the drift that this
>> document is trying to bring ND to another feature parity that DHCPV6
>> supports - it's DHCPv6 PD.  So ND SLAAC should also support assignment
>> of a PD like DHCPv6 does.  
> 
> Personally, I think SLAAC should stay simple and I do not support this SLAAC-PD idea. In either case, this needs to be a separate discussion.
> 
>> However, I cannot accept this document in its current state to be a 6man
>> WG work item because this document has a MUST in section 6.2 for sending
>> a multicast RA with unicast L2 address.  I and Wes have already blocked
>> the LastCall for such a doctored (L3 destination is multicast but L2
>> destination is unicast) multicast packet document in v6ops
>> (draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast). 
> 
> This is not a last call of the document :-). I am not sure that the issues you bring up against that document apply in this case. Can you specify what exactly is the issue with unicasting the RA.
> 


I don't understand either. Why is it an issue for a sender node to transmit a packet on the link-layer as a unicast message, if its known there is only one receiver. I've not seen a single valid argument and so its fine, one is entitled for their opinions.


Regards
Sri