About Push Model in draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02
Fortune HUANG <fqhuang@huawei.com> Tue, 20 July 2010 08:03 UTC
Return-Path: <fqhuang@huawei.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 7E4F73A6BF0 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.804
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.804 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 F90rD9n9YyPQ for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:03:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.65]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2A83A6C2B for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L5U00L63JPU3O@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:03:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L5U00KVWJPUCA@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:03:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from h36145c ([10.70.39.65]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L5U00EC8JPUBP@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:03:30 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:03:30 +0800
From: Fortune HUANG <fqhuang@huawei.com>
Subject: About Push Model in draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02
To: 'Tim Chown' <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Message-id: <32F3C457EB5D4EC98DFAE4B5CB2C10DF@china.huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_EBqdNGMYuA0vAHgN/OEl1g)"
Thread-index: Acsn4gpzHt8ax22gSImHnnCh195oiw==
Cc: ipv6@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, 20 Jul 2010 08:03:38 -0000
Hi Tim, In section 7.3 of draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-considerations-02, the second paragraph reads: "It may of course be possible to piggy back policy information to a host in a Router Advertisement message, though initial consensus seems to be that this is a less attractive approach." I think it would be more convincing if there were some text about the reason why the push model is a less attractive approach. This would also give people a chance to validate this initial consensue. Besides, I would be grateful if you could let me know why the second sentence of the paragraph has been removed, because I once thought this might be a possible solution. The removed sentence reads: "However, we may find that RAs may be a good place to indicate whether a default policy is in place or not, to avoid hosts requesting non-existent updates via DHCPv6." Thanks a lot! Best regards, Fortune
- About Push Model in draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-c… Fortune HUANG
- Re: About Push Model in draft-ietf-6man-addr-sele… Arifumi Matsumoto