Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Behcet,

> On May 25, 2023, at 7:58 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 4:48 PM Michael McBride <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Looks good Pascal. Agree its ready to progress.
> 
> 
> 
> [MCAST PROBLEMS] can be now be replaced with RFC 9119.
> 
> 
> 
> And you may want to consider moving the acronyms up from page 13 to page 3.
> 
> 
> I had already suggested this long time back.
> 
> Having said that I am surprised Pascal all of a sudden is asking WGLC.

I read what he wrote as asking for reviews now in order to get to a w.g. last call later.

Reviews would be good.

Bob


> 
> I said give me a break to myself 😀.
> 
> Behcet
> 
> 
> Question on your Bonjour reference. Bonjour uses mDNS. Is that what you are referring to with “Excessive use of broadcast by protocols such as ND-Classic and Bonjour led network administrators to install multicast rate limiting to protect the network.”? We didn’t get into Bonjour in 9119 but we did get into mDNS a bit, ie, when many devices are using it. Just want to make sure we are saying that same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> mike
> 
> 
> 
> From: ipv6 <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:52 PM
> To: IPv6 WG ([e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> Subject: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless
> 
> 
> 
> Dear WG:
> 
> 
> 
> We adopted that draft to publish it as informational; it is at the same time a state of the art, a problem statement, and an applicability statement.
> 
> 
> 
> The issues are clear and present, see also draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations. We face customer situations where clients are not properly served because ND snooping fails to locate them all with a painful regularity. This impacts all sorts of situations, from wireless to fabrics / EVPN.
> 
> 
> 
> Note that This is indeed very related to the SLAAC operation and IPv4 is mostly immune. Meaning that the IPv6 experience is of more broadcasts and less reliability.
> 
> 
> 
> In order to progress in solving the issues raised, it makes sense to publish soon and move on. The draft has been progressing as an individual submission for a long time and it is mostly complete, IMHO. So my intent is to ask for WGLC sooner than later. To get there, reviews would be highly appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> Many thanks in advance : )
> 
> 
> 
> Pascal
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------