IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: universal RA option

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 08 April 2019 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17521203D9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 06:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 y5-otsWsiE58 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 06:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bugle.employees.org (accordion.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 58C1E1201BD for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 06:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bugle.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8CD89FECBFDD; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 13:41:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB1212A03CE; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 15:41:47 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.8\))
Subject: Re: universal RA option
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <E2AC1BED-4D13-4169-B9A9-4B29F00E8FCE@conjury.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 15:41:47 +0200
Cc: 6man@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7C422B44-CA7E-403C-B187-56FBE8142AB0@employees.org>
References: <E2AC1BED-4D13-4169-B9A9-4B29F00E8FCE@conjury.org>
To: j h woodyatt <jhw@conjury.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.8)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/TAQNWKO1j-A7l7inIbksXTfMrpI>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 08 Apr 2019 13:41:55 -0000

James,

> If a universal option format is warranted for Router Advertisement messages, then I suggest defining it for all the messages in section 4 of RFC 4861, and not just for the Router Advertisement message. That would allow, for example, refactoring of this expired draft to use it:
> 
> 	<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-6man-rio-redirect>

Right…
Do we want to evolve ND into a poor mans routing protocol though?
Or a “static route negotiation protocol”?

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email