IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6MAN Adoption call on raft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-04

Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org> Tue, 19 November 2013 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <nordmark@acm.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE271AE1A1 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:21:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VnYLKYp69vGZ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d.mail.sonic.net (d.mail.sonic.net [64.142.111.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5354C1AE193 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:21:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.22.251.17] ([162.210.130.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by d.mail.sonic.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAJJLWSF001243 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:21:32 -0800
Message-ID: <528BBA3E.5010004@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 11:21:34 -0800
From: Erik Nordmark <nordmark@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Subject: Re: 6MAN Adoption call on raft-chakrabarti-nordmark-6man-efficient-nd-04
References: <1F653502-AD41-4EB6-A43D-541356810DF2@employees.org> <CAAedzxrQcfa+2OEqpgFQEgnEiDbVRFkZW24CHzX-av0-xN4u7A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxrQcfa+2OEqpgFQEgnEiDbVRFkZW24CHzX-av0-xN4u7A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Sonic-ID: C;kjt7zE9R4xGzdY9G53gOpw== M;MiyfzE9R4xGzdY9G53gOpw==
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 19:21:43 -0000

On 11/19/13 11:17 AM, Erik Kline wrote:

> Fundamentally, the main use case seems to be trying to merge two
> different link types.  One link type for low power nodes, one for
> "more traditional" nodes, if you will.

Erik,

I guess I don't understand the future tense you are using.
The deployed networks have already merged WiFi with Ethernet by having 
APs which make the whole thing look as one broadcast domain.

This draft is merely trying to cope better with that fact.

    Erik

> I think we have *routing* for this.  Merging what is really two
> different L2 types so that they can try to be one seemless L2 domain
> still doesn't feel right to me.
>
> Just my top-level 2 cents.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email