IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Thu, 03 July 2008 21:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D37F3A6812; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:12:02 -0700 (PDT)
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 F40D63A67EF for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.611, 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 7zkwDj7kh2Vs for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com (e1.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BBF43A6812 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 14:11:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (d01relay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.234]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m63LBXUi027371 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:11:33 -0400
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by d01relay02.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m63LBXD0232130 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:11:33 -0400
Received: from d01av02.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m63LBW6N024680 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:11:33 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (sig-9-76-130-61.mts.ibm.com [9.76.130.61]) by d01av02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m63LBVjh024630 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:11:32 -0400
Received: from cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (cichlid-new [127.0.0.1]) by cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com (8.14.2/8.12.5) with ESMTP id m63LBUCF014613; Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:11:30 -0400
Message-Id: <200807032111.m63LBUCF014613@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
In-reply-to: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41EB6@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
References: <486388BD.2090801@innovationslab.net> <200807031925.m63JPRp7031611@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41EB6@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> message dated "Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:05:22 -0400."
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:11:30 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>
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: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

> Sorry, I forgot one item that Wes just reminded me of. Earlier in the
> day I had emailed out our new text for bullet 2 that has this new line:

> "The source of an ND message is no longer used for on-link
> determination, which is a change from [RFC4861]."

I object, because I do not believe 4861 really says this (if you look
across the document in totality) or was widely interpreted to say
this.

Until the recent notes from David Miles, I don't think anyone noticed
the bug. Certainly, I have seen no evidence that implementations
actually interpreted 4861 or its predecessors and actually did the
wrong thing when receiving an NS.

So, we can call certainly this a clarification, but I'd hesitate to
call it a change.

Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email