IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: off-link model in the 6lowpan talk: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Tue, 10 November 2009 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57D953A691B; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:37:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.076
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.523, 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 QAIXHnsuGeAs; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A52C3A687B; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 19:37:03 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: rtp-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEACNv+EpAZnwM/2dsb2JhbADFIZdchD4EgWg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,713,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="67203654"
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com ([64.102.124.12]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2009 03:37:28 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com ([72.163.62.188]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAA3bSuc019591; Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:37:28 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-114.cisco.com ([72.163.62.156]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 9 Nov 2009 21:37:28 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: off-link model in the 6lowpan talk: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:37:25 -0600
Message-ID: <AF742F21C1FCEE4DAB7F4842ABDC511C1C2962@XMB-RCD-114.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A812CC61-55F4-433C-A91E-D9883E5E029F@tzi.org>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: off-link model in the 6lowpan talk: draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07
Thread-Index: Acphqz4tqQJIvqhCR6+5Rshd6aztBQAC5R5A
References: <AF742F21C1FCEE4DAB7F4842ABDC511C1C2927@XMB-RCD-114.cisco.com> <E25A00D1-AD13-482A-91A8-75ACC89200E7@tzi.org> <AF742F21C1FCEE4DAB7F4842ABDC511C1C2947@XMB-RCD-114.cisco.com> <A812CC61-55F4-433C-A91E-D9883E5E029F@tzi.org>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2009 03:37:28.0193 (UTC) FILETIME=[20473F10:01CA61B7]
Cc: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>, ipv6@ietf.org, Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, Samita Chakrabarti <samitac@ipinfusion.com>, 6lowpan@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:37:04 -0000

Carston,

Yes, that is the closure.  Not on-link means send traffic to the default
router(s).  We just do not want language in any document to proliferate
that ND has a means to specify a prefix as off-link.  

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:cabo@tzi.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:12 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: 6lowpan@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan
Hui; Samita Chakrabarti; Erik Nordmark; Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: off-link model in the 6lowpan talk:
draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd-07

On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:05, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> ND as specified by RFC 4861 has no means to
> signal a prefix as off-link, so the L bit cleared is not signaling
> off-link.

Right, L=0 does not say "this is off-link", it says "I'm not saying it  
is on-link".
(RFC 4861, section 4.6.2 and 6.3.4.)
Now, if nobody ever says it is on-link, it remains off-link.

Gruesse, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email