Re: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

["Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[e-mail]>]

I’m not ignoring it Behcet. In fact I made that change for the acronyms.


Regards,

Pascal

Le 26 mai 2023 à 17:09, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> a écrit :


Hi Bob,

I made a review already, Pascal wants to ignore it, it is fine with me.

Behcet

On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 10:36 AM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Behcet,

On May 25, 2023, at 7:58 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi all,


On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 4:48 PM Michael McBride <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Looks good Pascal. Agree its ready to progress.

[MCAST PROBLEMS] can be now be replaced with RFC 9119.


And you may want to consider moving the acronyms up from page 13 to page 3.

I had already suggested this long time back.

Having said that I am surprised Pascal all of a sudden is asking WGLC.

I read what he wrote as asking for reviews now in order to get to a w.g. last call later.

Reviews would be good.

Bob



I said give me a break to myself 😀.

Behcet

Question on your Bonjour reference. Bonjour uses mDNS. Is that what you are referring to with “Excessive use of broadcast by protocols such as ND-Classic and Bonjour led network administrators to install multicast rate limiting to protect the network.”? We didn’t get into Bonjour in 9119 but we did get into mDNS a bit, ie, when many devices are using it. Just want to make sure we are saying that same thing.

Thanks,
mike

From: ipv6 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:52 PM
To: IPv6 WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [IPv6] next steps for draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-over-wireless

Dear WG:

We adopted that draft to publish it as informational; it is at the same time a state of the art, a problem statement, and an applicability statement.

The issues are clear and present, see also draft-ietf-v6ops-nd-considerations. We face customer situations where clients are not properly served because ND snooping fails to locate them all with a painful regularity. This impacts all sorts of situations, from wireless to fabrics / EVPN.

Note that This is indeed very related to the SLAAC operation and IPv4 is mostly immune. Meaning that the IPv6 experience is of more broadcasts and less reliability.

In order to progress in solving the issues raised, it makes sense to publish soon and move on. The draft has been progressing as an individual submission for a long time and it is mostly complete, IMHO. So my intent is to ask for WGLC sooner than later. To get there, reviews would be highly appreciated.

Many thanks in advance : )

Pascal
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[e-mail]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------