routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers")

Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com> Wed, 26 November 2003 19:06 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21950 for <ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4ze-0000qr-TU for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:31 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hAQJ6U0O003272 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:30 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4ze-0000qh-Ox for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:30 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21928 for <ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4zc-0002vZ-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:28 -0500
Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4zc-0002vW-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:28 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4zB-0000l2-N8; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:06:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AP4yp-0000kb-E9 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:05:39 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21904 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:05:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4yl-0002ux-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:05:35 -0500
Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com ([205.226.5.69]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AP4yk-0002uc-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:05:35 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id hAQJ4o808617; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:04:50 -0800
X-mProtect: <200311261904> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection
Received: from ftemplin.iprg.nokia.com (205.226.2.67, claiming to be "iprg.nokia.com") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpd3XyKwc; Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:04:49 PST
Message-ID: <3FC4FB34.7050909@iprg.nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:12:52 -0800
From: Fred Templin <ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
CC: Nick 'Sharkey' Moore <sharkey@zoic.org>, ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers")
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311261223240.6104-100000@netcore.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

As I said in my last message, my goal was to get a message  out and
not push new terminology. I agree with Pekka that it doesn't matter at
all whether a router has just one interface or hundreds; it is still a 
router.
(In fact, this is nearly the exact response I received when I asked a 
related
question during an IPv6 session at IETF 58.) Hosts with embedded gateway
functions, as described in RFC 1122, section 3.3.4.2 under: "Weak ES
Model" also qaulify as routers, and it doesn't matter at all what
different routers advertise - they are all still just *routers*.

However, the message that must not be lost in the terminology shuffle
is that it very much *does* matter that nodes be able to selectively
solicit at least two different classes of information from routers:

  1) Classical prefix/autoconfig information as specified in RFC 2461
  2) Route Information Options as specified in:
    
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt

The two ways I see to do this are to either specify a new IPv6 ND option
(call it a "Type II Router Solicitation" for lack of a better name) or 
to add
bits to the existing IPv6 Router Soliciation message (e.g., in the 
"Reserved"
field) that indicate the type of information being solicited.

What does the wg feel is the best way to move forward with this?

Thanks - Fred
ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com

Pekka Savola wrote:

>I agree with this view, it's no use trying to overload two different 
>meanings for a router depending on capitalization.
>
>I don't think it matters at all whether a router has just one 
>interface or many, or what it advertises or not, or whether it 
>pretends to be a host on one interface, or originates UDP/TCP packets, 
>or whatever.  It's still a router.
>
>  
>



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------