Re: New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-6man-next-hop-ra-00.txt
Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 24 February 2014 03:35 UTC
Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 C06C21A028E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:35:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 28iJ-tJS4559 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621211A027D for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id kq14so5947642pab.17 for <6man@ietf.org>; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:35:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=I4gUfXyCGXKo178rRgUq5AzRu6MCutE4c2R4h5pX3Po=; b=G49YOOQVw9V7XrDlrZlFEffxOoeLvdxtbOic+kd/wMm9ZMZqoM1T3nMYXP+hD75c2f 9JywVuJqElOBnuQkd+o19oNkNFTKxFhku4iroto8mPrVfOKbchyCBTbUSrKT5W4UF9At 1d5ucMeqPpd0OvfdZKjTE7lCwJnQo8Dn0qiioUl1TA8X3+B/jLKvDm4YenpebGDvPUO8 E7tZCE1sZX0kPSDt2c0Aa7FUqowUGTzvbiQ/IvM8Fw4wxIw8tDtFuxw4N/BLkZoXgDjH 8Q8FLGF9eXYSbF1YJxOCDlaR8NL6vv4RUOf2uH/njhG8xI31axSqBWP1OnNOP7rVqYie TwAA==
X-Received: by 10.66.149.7 with SMTP id tw7mr22512463pab.72.1393212954143; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.178.23] (155.199.69.111.dynamic.snap.net.nz. [111.69.199.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ou9sm146027pbc.30.2014.02.23.19.35.51 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 23 Feb 2014 19:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <530ABE15.8090307@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 16:35:49 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-6man-next-hop-ra-00.txt
References: <20140210213947.14657.20184.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAC8QAccLtt4E2D0Ot6DQHN0N8Nq__ek_rRr4Geu2-Oo9enNkFA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAfuxnJHOkA099VPVXjP0cDSFURnmgcoQN6=AMWZ8hSC9ed7ow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAfuxnJHOkA099VPVXjP0cDSFURnmgcoQN6=AMWZ8hSC9ed7ow@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/aV2mgld8ob2pF6uz12E9FqTPzOY
Cc: Dan Lüdtke <maildanrl@gmail.com>
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, 24 Feb 2014 03:35:56 -0000
On 15/02/2014 06:35, Dan Lüdtke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have very mixed feelings regarding this draft and I have not yet
> decided whether it is me or the draft :)
It's probably the fact that the community is very divided as to whether
this, or a DHCPv6 based solution, is the right one for delivering
routing information to hosts. Personally I see advantages in defining
enough in RA that a DHCPv6-free network is possible, but it only
makes sense if we insist that routing information capable of delivery
by RA and that capable of delivery by DHCPv6 have *exactly* the same
semantics (even if the syntax of the messages is different).
...
> I also have the feeling that consuming 7 numbers from the registry for
> new options is a bit too greedy. Do you see any way to reduce the
> consumption of this very limited resource? I think it would help
> supporting the draft a lot.
Since an address is the same thing as a /128 prefix, I would
think that the address TLVs could be replaced by prefixes,
which would save at least a couple of option numbers. If that
isn't enough, it would have to go to subtypes.
Brian
- Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-6… Dan Lüdtke
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-6… Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-6… Brian E Carpenter