[mif] Question to draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-05
Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com> Wed, 24 October 2012 12:34 UTC
Return-Path: <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6494A21F894C for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:34:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.038
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.038 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UM3tyx8D0TBz for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw2.ericsson.se (mailgw2.ericsson.se [193.180.251.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3F3121F8939 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f956d0000011c3-0c-5087e050357a
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw2.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id E5.6E.04547.050E7805; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:34:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSHC023.ericsson.se (153.88.183.87) by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:34:24 +0200
Received: from ESESSMB301.ericsson.se ([169.254.1.169]) by ESESSHC023.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:34:24 +0200
From: Ivo Sedlacek <ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com>
To: "mif@ietf.org" <mif@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Question to draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-05
Thread-Index: Ac2x48yO3q8p/vbGSI+GbiRys+ZsVQ==
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:34:23 +0000
Message-ID: <39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B3107900610101A1DC@ESESSMB301.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US, cs-CZ
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.16]
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_005_39B5E4D390E9BD4890E2B3107900610101A1DCESESSMB301ericsso_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrMIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvrW7Ag/YAg499ZhZde24wOTB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr48XhJcwF7ZcYK9bsec3ewHhvD2MXIyeHhICJxJNDe5kgbDGJ C/fWs3UxcnEICZxilOj9+ZcdwtnJKDFx/loWCGcJo8Thv30sIC1sAnoSE7ccYQWxRQQUJf6+ 3s0MYgsLWEms7Z7PBhG3lzh6bikzhK0n8epTG9hqFgFViY51U4E2cHDwCnhL9J5JAQkzCshK XP3TC1bCLCAucevJfKjrRCQeXjzNBmGLSrx8/I8VwlaU2Hm2nRnkNmaBbkaJj9OusYMkeAUE JU7OfMICMl9IQE3i46r8CYwis5CMnYWsZRaSFoiifImrfZfZIWwdiQW7P7FB2NoSyxa+Zoax zxx4zIQpriOx+dJOqDmKEm2ds6GWLWWUWHngMRtM0e6/PawwRVO6H8ItW9o2DaiGAyzedacM rvf3qhOsMDUv7r9mQ9a7gFFoFaNwbmJmTnq5kV5qUWZycXF+nl5x6iZGYEI5uOW36g7GO+dE DjFKc7AoifNab93jLySQnliSmp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoFRaVNrs3mK0cZ9zsVpNQdD WPVbp85jYnnzJcG4terBN2/B/bzsEz82mmx8s5WXLZ3Juzxv68/p06QaTp3KL1+aeYg5o/zN cTmZrQXrzb/u/N6bsVBj6ezOxtuP267GrLgkaL/oZfOh4t0+xcfZgtUsj8+aq3lirlJbN9dh dqVrnw++UdO94K2txFKckWioxVxUnAgATC0ID/YCAAA=
Subject: [mif] Question to draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-05
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:34:33 -0000
Hello,
draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-05 states in section 7.1:
Metric field (available in previous version of this draft) has been
replaced with 2-bit preference field that is in line with RIO
information.
Issue1:
the section 4 states:
In terms of the high level operation of the solution defined in this
draft, a DHCPv6 client interested in obtaining routing information
request the route options using the DHCPv6 Option Request Option
(ORO) sent to a server. A Server, when configured to do so, provides
the requested route information as part of a nested options structure
covering; the next-hop address; the destination prefix; >>the route
metric<<; any additional options applicable to the destination or next-
hop.
Given the statement in section 7.1, is "the route metric" above correct or is it an obsolete text?
Issue2:
section 5.2 states:
....
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| OPTION_RT_PREFIX | option-len |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Route lifetime |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Prefix-Length |Resvd|Prf|Resvd| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
| Prefix |
| (up to 16 octets) |
| |
| +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |
. .
. RT_PREFIX sub-options .
. .
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 3: Route Prefix Option Format
....
Metric: Route Metric. 8-bit signed integer. The Route Metric
indicates whether to prefer the next hop associated with
this prefix over others, when multiple identical prefixes
(for different next hops) have been received.
....
There is no "Metric" field shown in the Figure 3.
Thanks for clarification.
Kind regards
IVO SEDLACEK
Ericsson
Mobile +420 608 234 709
ivo.sedlacek@ericsson.com
www.ericsson.com
[Description: Description: http://www.ericsson.com/]<http://www.ericsson.com/>
This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>
- Re: [mif] Question to draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route… Alexandru Petrescu
- [mif] Question to draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-opt… Ivo Sedlacek