IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: RFC7084

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Tue, 10 December 2013 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208F61ADEBB for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:28:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CbE8kIlDmV5q for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D9681A1F56 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:28:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:54e0:da70:48b1:eece]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D7045400A8; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:28:16 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <52A72500.6020009@viagenie.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:28:16 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wuyts Carl <Carl.Wuyts@technicolor.com>, "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: RFC7084
References: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DC7BB@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611303B0269@GAALPA1MSGUSR9L.ITServices.sbc.com> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCD72@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1312100803370.24602@uplift.swm.pp.se> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DCE42@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com> <52A7236A.30605@viagenie.ca> <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DD168@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>
In-Reply-To: <96747494E3D74D41B20907035DB1E48DD168@MOPESMBX03.eu.thmulti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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 Dec 2013 14:28:24 -0000

Le 2013-12-10 09:25, Wuyts Carl a écrit :
> M=1 should not be equal to force request ia_na.

What should M=1 mean then?

> what's the purpose of having separate options (ia_na and ia_pd)  if you're going to request both of them anyway ?

The answer to that seems simple to me: an end host would never request 
IA_PD. Only routers would.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

v2.40.4 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status