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

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Thu, 10 July 2008 15:53 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 296F23A67AD; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:53:39 -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 38DBF3A677D for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 Jev1rfwiY6LO for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imr1.ericy.com (imr1.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D3FA3A67A3 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6AFrjNX019376; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:53:45 -0500
Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se ([138.85.77.50]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:53:45 -0500
Received: from [142.133.10.113] ([142.133.10.113]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 10 Jul 2008 10:53:44 -0500
Message-ID: <4876310C.9070404@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:55:56 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080505)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?windows-1252?Q?JINMEI_Tatuya_/_=3F=3F=3F=3F?= <Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call:draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-00.txt
References: <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03A9F348@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <m2r6a24lwi.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org> <B00EDD615E3C5344B0FFCBA910CF7E1D04E41F06@xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com> <m2mykq48x7.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <m2mykq48x7.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jul 2008 15:53:44.0789 (UTC) FILETIME=[21FED850:01C8E2A5]
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com>, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, 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: <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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Tatuya,

JINMEI Tatuya / ???? wrote:
> At Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:54:04 -0400,
> "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>; wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for the reply. Let's see if we can meet common ground with you.
>>
>> Our justification for prohibiting on-link caching is only in emails to
>> 6man as follows:
>>
>>  "What if there are cache-inconsistency problems, prefix renumbering, 
>>  or stale information?  I think it's better just to get rid of 
>>  caching on-link information in stable storage and get such 
>>  information fresh from RA's.  That way, administrators can better 
>>  rationalize the behavior of their network from the configured RA's." 
> 
> And I replied to this justification, saying this itself cannot justify
> killing on-link caching while (perhaps implicitly) allowing address
> caching.
> 
>> Also, when Suresh Krishnan pointed out that he supports bullet 3, he
>> made us explicitly mention in the bullet that it's a new rule. We have
>> been clear in the draft where there is a new rule and where it's
>> clarification. Besides this new rule, the rest of the draft is
>> clarification.
> 
> Suresh has his right to express his opinion, of course, and so do I.
> I would not like this document to set new rules (note, again, that I'm
> not objecting to discussing new changes to RFC4861/4862.  I'm simply
> objecting to doing that in this document).

Of course :-). I was not sure about this either, but I was fine with 
leaving this in as long as it explicitly stated it is a new rule. But I 
agree with you in principle.

Cheers
Suresh

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