RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Thu, 10 July 2008 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <ipv6-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ipv6-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808A83A69AF; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563613A69AF for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:11:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.084
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.515, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 030wBj+gxMKS for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:11:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E19693A68BD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:11:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.30,340,1212364800"; d="scan'208";a="13885862"
Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Jul 2008 21:11:53 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m6ALBrjM023531; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:11:53 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6ALBrlY001073; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 21:11:53 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:11:52 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:11:52 -0400
Message-ID: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41F27@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41F1B@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcjilO8fIkrLHUXIT+G6555LqioHWQAJYdHAAAV4S+A=
References: <486388BD.2090801@innovationslab.net><200807031925.m63JPRp7031611@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41EB6@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com><200807032111.m63LBUCF014613@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com><B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41EB9@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com><m2k5fv6b4b.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org><B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41EFD@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com><200807101352.m6ADqUEC026668@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41F1B@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>, "Thomas Narten" <narten@us.ibm.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2008 21:11:52.0818 (UTC) FILETIME=[9358ED20:01C8E2D1]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4478; t=1215724313; x=1216588313; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20<shemant@cisco. com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=206MAN=20WG=20Last=20Call=3Adraft-ietf-6m an-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20<shemant@cisco.co m>,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22Thomas=20Narten=22=20<narte n@us.ibm.com>; bh=UKI6lQpR5G9AO5D84sJ22o6313f2KEarpVssQqAloGQ=; b=dNVTjr4ECHMoXZF3ra74aI7WW5UPiKbIc6GfxJX6MmkCpqi0RwhguBlfuP uFr5JOknUX+c5S/Z535BoOI4LOxAgBQGqFRQ3wK84zGl/cSoSyvFkhWHfTu9 WzdGxLujqV;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; );
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

Thomas,

2nd ping. If you could please reply, that'd be great. I don't think the
ship will return back to port to discuss anything related to on-link
definition bullets three and four in our draft - that ship has sailed.
So now that we have agreed to removing the line mentioned in the email
chain below I hope you don't have anything objection to this para (from
Introduction section of our draft), do you?

   The on-link definition in the Terminology section of [RFC4861]
   defines the complete list of cases where an address is considered on-
   link.  Note, in particular, that Redirect Messages can also indicate
   an address is off-link.  Individual address entries can be expired by
   the Neighbor Unreachability Detection mechanism.

Thanks.

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 2:28 PM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

Thomas,

Are you ok with the new paragraph if we removed this sentence from it:

"As of the writing of this document, bullets three and four of the
on-link definition are being debated and may need further
clarification." 

Further, since Tatuya will not let us add any text that suggests new
rules over RFC4861, we cannot accommodate any discussion related to
bullet 3 and 4 of on-link definition in our draft.

Please reply ASAP.

Thanks.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:52 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org; Bob Hinden; Brian Haberman; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>; writes:

> Tatuya,

> Erik suggested some new text to us related to bullets 3 and 4 of 
> on-link definition in the Terminology section of RFC4861. He is busy 
> this week - we are sending this on his behalf. As you know bullet 4 is

> being debated in 6man. Erik thinks even bullet 3 is suspect. We don't 
> want such suspect information to be lost in archived emails of 6man.
> So we added the information to our draft. Please see the new paragraph
from us:


>     The on-link definition in the Terminology section of [RFC4861]
>     defines the complete list of cases where an address is
>     considered on-link.  Note, in particular, that Redirect Messages
>     can also indicate an address is off-link.  As of the writing of
>     this document, bullets three and four of the on-link definition
>     are being debated and may need further clarification.
>     Individual address entries can be expired by the Neighbor
>     Unreachability Detection mechanism.

> Please let us know if the new text works for you?

It does not work for me.

Looking at the bullets 3 & 4:

>    on-link     - an address that is assigned to an interface on a
>                  specified link.  A node considers an address to be
on-
>                  link if:
> 
>                     - it is covered by one of the link's prefixes
(e.g.,
>                       as indicated by the on-link flag in the Prefix
>                       Information option), or
> 
>                     - a neighboring router specifies the address as
the
>                       target of a Redirect message, or
> 
>                     - a Neighbor Advertisement message is received for
>                       the (target) address, or
> 
>                     - any Neighbor Discovery message is received from
>                       the address.

IMO, bullets 3 & 4 MUST NOT be taken to indicate an address is on-link.
Nowhere in the ND specification does receipt of an NA or NS result in
the creation of a Destination Cache Entry that overrides the first two
bullets. The first 2 bullets are the only way (excluding manual
configuration) that an address is indicated to be on-link.

Yes, there are cases where and NS will create or update a  Neighbor
Cache Entry, but that is NOT the same thing as indicating that the
address is on-link.

Thomas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------