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

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 <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:

> Behcet,
>
> On May 25, 2023, at 7:58 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 4:48 PM Michael McBride <
> michael.mcbride@futurewei.com> 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 <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org> *On Behalf Of * Pascal Thubert
>> (pthubert)
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:52 PM
>> *To:* IPv6 WG (ipv6@ietf.org) <ipv6@ietf.org>
>> *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
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>