Re: sleeping proxy at the IETF
James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Mon, 23 March 2015 21:25 UTC
Return-Path: <jhw@nestlabs.com>
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 F14AD1A1AFF for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 XbdCAPDethxr for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:25:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22b.google.com (mail-oi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1266C1A1B2D for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by oifl3 with SMTP id l3so122124509oif.0 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nestlabs.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=UUjTmAEEkFxwPA05xaxGtFyiwJNuX2zTZhHtwd1t8sA=; b=C3i4adJS7dp11zUK2LSEfznV915dl/fsv4RdSp1LoPXsqY+zKv81y8esDSgRwlkZz4 kYo/aNEgl6eYvt2Nhlk99qVgWesYzdfCgreJCqi+KvT7ToNJWDISkwcKyTaVLVz+2y3v 06OpxvHNaLM9JhVTvIuq/P/sQHoYkFbF3GpOU=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=UUjTmAEEkFxwPA05xaxGtFyiwJNuX2zTZhHtwd1t8sA=; b=IQX95b4a5JvLfawbom8c0LixUma68iREckevoxMKUG6f+R2b0dSnbMV1A3nWaRGXNu /ucvxIjYLNQaS4ku+A8/WZ9h0gyyEAzUVgpFMPKTsLnnP37SrFPGZENqS37RKSS94l/H AjeooVWDBe42zBY4RtsfIu8P5Sz1i9Of00XdZi3FR1AgRBgI24uF5PsOMv03t/g2n/uy LhJI/1denV1ZAZldZPJkig5Aowvsw7KwJC7KVkWfngZ3b18p+jZp9zPiKH+QSXPgdPtT Y9oFyov2vWeNAJpP7TchvCJJs9qvGTNw5foCAM/PSDS3s/nF0KegUnn1jY1nOFfNMqpx x3ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl60PoBDUHXfM2jLlaJui4E3l53ZrQiRY7IUQ8hY+DL3gaJ8TJuBBA2HOysPHKqEmgedazS
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.202.205.146 with SMTP id d140mr790666oig.35.1427145903486; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.150.2 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849D83B09@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
References: <E045AECD98228444A58C61C200AE1BD849D83B09@xmb-rcd-x01.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:25:03 -0500
Message-ID: <CADhXe516OfjO1P=YzzWwLsEAppEoc9WF5nDD3546XvZgRYupBw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: sleeping proxy at the IETF
From: James Woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1134e69a9ecd380511fb4c81"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/SXUaZ2yULqHQ6Qt0oUp7W5XYb2Q>
Cc: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>, "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:25:08 -0000
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) < pthubert@cisco.com> wrote: > > > Do I read from your description that the particular sleeping proxy expects > a single IPv6 address per device/MAC or something? [...] > As I said, it looks to me like the ECMA specification for ProxyZzzz could benefit from a clarification. I have passing familiarty with some implementations, which don't require the modified EUI-64 in the IID of the IPv6 address to correspond to the MAC address of the interface, and which are capable of counting past one interface address per interface. In this case, it's probably smart to look past what the ECMA specification says, and pay attention to what the implementations actually do. It's the implementations that actually get put in the test bench and hammered until they work right. -- james woodyatt <jhw@nestlabs.com> Nest Labs, Communications Engineering
- sleeping proxy at the IETF Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: sleeping proxy at the IETF James Woodyatt