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

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isc.org> Mon, 09 November 2009 00:32 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei@isc.org>
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 E023F28C0D9 for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:32:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2]
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 uK8PatqE1R4d for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mon.jinmei.org (mon.jinmei.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:36::162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D653A6A36 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:32:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (host-18-243.meeting.ietf.org [133.93.18.243]) by mon.jinmei.org (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EF15233C3A; Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:33:06 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:33:03 +0900
Message-ID: <m2r5s8y1ts.wl%jinmei@isc.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isc.org>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <4AE6CA6F.5090206@innovationslab.net>
References: <4AE6CA6F.5090206@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:35:49 -0800
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
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: <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, 09 Nov 2009 00:32:48 -0000

At Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:24:47 -0400,
Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>; wrote:

>       Title     : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between
>                   Links and Subnet Prefixes
>       Author(s) : H. Singh, et al.
>       Filename  : draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-05.txt
>       Pages     : 11
>       Date      : 2009-05-15
> 
> as a Proposed Standard.  Substantive comments and statements of support
> for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list.
> Editorial suggestions can be sent to the document editor.  This last
> call will end on October 14, 2009.

I've read the latest version of the draft and support for advancing
it.  I'm glad this document now focuses on its original issue (and
sorry for the process delay if it was due to my objection to previous
versions and my slow responses).

I have one minor technical comment.  In Introduction the draft states:

   In addition to the Prefix List, individual addresses are on-link if
   they are the target of a Redirect Message indicating on-link, or the
   source of a valid Neighbor Solicitation or Neighbor Advertisement
   message.  Note that Redirect Messages can also indicate an address is
   off-link.  Individual address entries can be expired by the Neighbor
   Unreachability Detection mechanism.

Technically, (in my understanding) Redirect Messages do not directly
indicate an address is off-link.  What they can indicate are:
1. an address is on-link
2. an address is reachable via a different router than the redirect
   sender

normally #2 means the address is off-link, but, again, technically, my
understanding is that it doesn't have to be so.

Frankly, I don't understand the rationale of this note in this context
in the first place (I don't see any problem even if we remove this
sentence), but if the intent is to just note the role of redirect is
not limited to show an address being on-link, I'd suggest rephrase the
"Note that..." sentence as follows:

   Note that Redirect Messages can also designate an alternate better
   router to reach an address, in which case the address is normally
   off-link.

---
JINMEI, Tatuya
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.