RE: RFC 2461- issue list
"Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com> Fri, 24 October 2003 04:04 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02116 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:04:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACtBL-0005dh-LB for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:04:12 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id h9O44B9a021671 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:04:11 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACtBL-0005dS-EW for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:04:11 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02092 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:04:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACtBJ-0004y6-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:04:09 -0400
Received: from ietf.org ([132.151.1.19] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACtBI-0004y3-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:04:08 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACtBC-0005XU-Bn; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:04:02 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ACtAn-0005L8-1U for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:03:37 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02060 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:03:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACtAk-0004xS-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:03:34 -0400
Received: from zmamail04.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.104]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ACtAj-0004xL-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:03:33 -0400
Received: from tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.103]) by zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D5713962; Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:03:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:03:34 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: RFC 2461- issue list
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 00:03:34 -0400
Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B047CA17F@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Thread-Topic: RFC 2461- issue list
Thread-Index: AcOZFMeNBepTBBE9RaGL7QoagaJp3AAzG6Iw
From: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
To: Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com>, ipv6@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2003 04:03:34.0569 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB678190:01C399E3]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hesham, Comments on the issues-list. Below for initial input. My view is we should not add mobile requirements into the ND 2461 spec at all. Only if a specific field was changed like the reserved field mentioned where MIPv6 used 1 bit. My rationale for that is as follows: ND is a core spec for IPv6 deployment now for many years and the only deployed production IPv6 nodes are NOT Mobile nodes. Mobile IPv6, though I am huge supporter of MIPv6, has not been deployed in production, or any method to do DNS discovery, and we should strongly I state NOT add new untested and unproven features and extensions to a spec that is solid well tested and now widely deployed, because of Mobility. This is an error and invalid approach to adding Mobility to ND and Addrconf parts required for Mobility. I believe SEND also is only valid issue because of Mobility too. So I strongly do not support putting MIPv6 enhancements back into 2461. It will break testing, certification, for a technology that is not yet even in production, and will not be until base IPv6 is deployed which is in process. Here is an example. A user I work with has an IPv6 mandate and requires 2461 because it is DS and widely tested and debugged pretty well. MIPv6 is listed as emerging but not mandated. If we put MIPv6 parts into ND then we have put emerging into a core IPv6 spec. That is not a good standards or engineering strategy and definitely not a good implementation strategy for nodes that do not do mobility, and most nodes on the Internet today are not mobile and that is reality. For tomorrow we need to build additional specs for Mobility as we have done for MIPv6 and add to ND as required not change ND. This is not a good deployment or standards strategy. A good example is we circulated 3315 back to PS. That made it emerging per the user. They are correct but look what just happened. They now do not have a mandated addressing spec but an emerging one for the protocol they are deploying and preparing for production. This was not wise on the IETFs part or we have become incompetent and the market simply cannot trust our judgement here as an engineering organization? More comments in line below. > Issue 1: Mixed Host/Router behaviour > by Pekka Savola, May 2001 > http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/200105/msg00068.html > Erik Nordmark made a comment that the text could be clearer: > http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ipng/200105/msg00077.html This is a clarity issue and fine for recycle. > > > Issue 2: Check against the case of preferred lifetime > valid lifetime > by jinmei, Dec 2002 > http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg07250.html > > This thread contained a possible updates on the > router behavior of > sending router advertisements: > http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg07402.html I don't agree with this issue nor the thread and we should not change router behavior for this but that is separate discussion. > > Issue 3: On-link assumptions in 2461 considered harmful. > This issue was raised by Alain and documented in: > draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-00.txt > draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault-00.txt > Also see related issue in section 2.4 of: > http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/ipv6/draft-jinchoi-ipv6-cRA-00.txt This is nothing more than a note and should not be put into 2461. > > Issue 4: Advertisement lifetime issues raised by Pete Barany We can increase or decrease values or add extensions. > > Issue 5: Clarifying the use of the M and O flags > (raised by Rolf and others during V6ops meeting > in San Francisco) Fine clarity edits. > > Issue 6: The prefix length field in the prefix option > and its consistency with the fixed prefix size > (64 bits) in RFC 3513. This is old debate we can do it again I guess. > > > SEND issues: > > Issue 7: All the security discussions (e.g. assuming that AH > or ESP can be added to the ND messages) will need to > be put in the context of SEND. > > Issue 8: Security considerations section needs to consider issues > in: draft-ietf-send-psreq-04 > > Issue 9: The chicken and egg problem for ND security using IKE > as specified in: > draft-arkko-icmpv6-ike-effects-02 > > and manual SAs issues addressed in: > draft-arkko-manual-icmpv6-sas-02 ND with IPsec is secure. Mobile creates new attacks. SEND should do their own spec and add value to ND. ND should not be updated. I argue and question the entire notion of SEND all the time. Not going there again. It is simply not needed for non mobile environments. > > MIP issues: > > Issue 10: Reducing MIN_DELAY_BETWEEN_RAS from 3 seconds > to 50 ms as specified in MIPv6 (many emails on the > MIP mailing list in October and November 2002) > > Issue 11: Eliminating the random delays required before sending > an RS when a mobile node does a handover to a new > link. The random delay imposed by 2461 significantly > increases the movement detection time for mobile nodes > > Issue 12: Eliminating the random delays required in 2461 when > a router sends a solicited RA. See : > draft-mkhalil-ipv6-fastra-04.txt > > Issue 13: Impacts of the omission of a prefix option. > section 2.2 in : > > http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/ipv6/draft-jinchoi-ipv6-cRA-00.t xt describes the impacts of omitting a prefix option from an RA on movement detection for mobile nodes. RFC 2461 does not require options to be present in every RA. >Issue 14: Link ids required to aid with movement detection. see: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-pentland-mobileip-linkid-00.tx t All MIP issues should be done in MIP, NEMO, and MIPSHOP et al. Not in ND for reasons I stated in the front of this email. >Finally, I recall (but not clearly) some discussions >on the clarity of 2461 when it comes to multihomed hosts. But >I haven't managed to find the relevant thread(s) in the >archive. So if you have an issue to add please let me know. This is a very weak set of issues for anything but a recycle and MIP and SEND and DNS should be done as separate drafts. /jim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
- RFC 2461- issue list Soliman Hesham
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Erik Nordmark
- RE: RFC 2461- issue list Soliman Hesham
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- RE: RFC 2461- issue list Bound, Jim
- RE: RFC 2461- issue list Pekka Savola
- RE: RFC 2461- issue list Soliman Hesham
- RE: RFC 2461- issue list Soliman Hesham
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Brian Haberman
- RFC 2460 issue Alain Durand
- RE: RFC 2461- issue list Erik Nordmark
- RE: RFC 2461- issue list Soliman Hesham
- Re: A list of issues for RFC2462 update JinHyeock Choi
- Re: A list of issues for RFC2462 update JinHyeock Choi
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Francis Dupont
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Erik Nordmark
- RE: RFC 2461- issue list Soliman Hesham
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Vijay Devarapalli
- Re: RFC 2460 issue Fred Templin
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Pekka Savola
- RE: RFC 2461- issue list Soliman Hesham
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Greg Daley
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list: Prefixes with L=0 JinHyeock Choi
- implementation reports for rfc246[01]bis (Re: RFC… JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: implementation reports for rfc246[01]bis (Re:… Fred Templin
- Re: implementation reports for rfc246[01]bis (Re:… JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
- Re: RFC 2461- issue list Greg Daley