IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-00.txt

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 16 May 2012 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@gmail.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 1429921F863B for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XLDpD59GEJmt for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B23D21F8636 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1037567yen.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f8yHymr8xpQ2ToUwGN/q+nLKXMDhaa1YieIntARWD7M=; b=0gQl9L8fIWL8ipoJ3PijqNlK3bcvCRxmlUjGRNiET413oyO+hMOFxevhLiDgH4spJy w7/vH86BBHPZgq36QbLpIJXn4eGr8WgWwGy51RHIINs5eBOtOFMv3CHjaC+oXInJ/331 higeD4H8TKkRc9HV42Z4o8tkr2jZirP8+M3cEoX5zytGbw3vaAeXjOcxImgoYiLYzGNZ /grAqh86nV3YQP+NWpf9PQNZO7hckd0/49HWZarWM+PwzJQek2xJFh5S9oCfl3+RlWIx ZIvHCh73gs4i05OYxHeNnQzMEQkkyn2TQmmEkP7/NbyEeu1hObXqXcX5UKT41lVAlC/b oE8A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.40.193 with SMTP id z1mr2943381igk.0.1337185981450; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.231.78.10 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4FA8E4BB.7030000@gmail.com>
References: <20120424215831.16501.93660.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FA8E4BB.7030000@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 11:33:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAC8QAcdFxxmWPghKNOS+F7J+Eh+4jdOHfhjh=Kuse=XuHZKc3A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: mif@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-00.txt
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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, 16 May 2012 16:33:04 -0000

Hi Brian,

Thank you for your comments.
My replies are inline.

Behcet

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter
<brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:
> Main comment:
>
> I would like to see some discussion (not standardisation) of the
> fact that the proposed new option (not to mention RIO) will need
> a central site-wide configuration mechanism. Otherwise the document
> will give the false impression that it solves the whole problem.
> As we know from the discussion of the DHCP solution, it doesn't.
>

Sure. I will. Do you mind offering some text?

> Minor comments:
>
>> 1.  Introduction
>>
>>    IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
>>    protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with
>>    various parameters [RFC4861], [RFC4862].
>
> I think RFC 4191 should also be listed here. In fact I would extend the
> sentence slightly:
>
>   IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
>   protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with
>   various parameters related to addressing and routing [RFC4861],
>   [RFC4862], [RFC4191].

OK

>
> And the next sentence:
>
>>    ...DNS Recursive Server
>>    Addresses and Domain Name Search Lists are example parameters that
>>    can be configured using router advertisements [RFC6106].
>
> Please s/example/additional/. As far as I know, RFC 6106 is the only
> extension to RA that is not related to addressing and routing, and
> many people objected even to that small extension.
>

I agree with this observation. For some time, it has not been possible
to have any extensions on RA options.

>> 5.  Next Hop Address option
> ...
>>    Length: The length of the option (including the type and length
>>    fields) in units of 8 octets.  For example, the length for an IPv6
>>    address is 3.
>
> Why "for example"?? This is an IPv6 spec. The length is 3, period.
>

OK

> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email