IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com> Fri, 18 May 2012 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <zehn.cao@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 6CE7C21F86B7 for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, 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 jJMrKRWXX5Mw for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C575E21F8674 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so3108846yhq.31 for <mif@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Zifx2p56pWXgHTKhk2neHj55FycqekhWEPOzH4qWeBw=; b=gcJ6GB8Zdr5QX5kX94cyiyHuPIsXkJqHVjTi2W0Zb46IdgTOFS8j40V7a2fpfZq8qU uk3g723KJPxFDdF88Xd9IYkEBLAlxIqvUQ75zLhPzvpW2pIGtIfOXFBTpnLKL3MTY9Jx x/EoB3Tw2ys0Fu+BH4NrFgra2uTSf2zM0MdA/YF0GMjkyWN1BAYT9swxuDBhCSAYzu1z RbpPgmEcwJQ7vsDIsVWdyNA/JaJKrOugpfoKPjvdjTh23OKO4/vkSGw1dqRpPaA1aL5m sph4nYPAQBqD6sGV2mxhHlLyyuY/igfU6b8y6E+76cKed5j9/x4aQ96ZvzIC01wJpDha Ugsw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.17.169 with SMTP id p9mr7725452igd.60.1337327768843; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.171.193 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAcdFxxmWPghKNOS+F7J+Eh+4jdOHfhjh=Kuse=XuHZKc3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20120424215831.16501.93660.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FA8E4BB.7030000@gmail.com> <CAC8QAcdFxxmWPghKNOS+F7J+Eh+4jdOHfhjh=Kuse=XuHZKc3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:56:08 +0800
Message-ID: <CAProHATQgO5_4wBMy8o1zTKZZu8U802Vuyt4QOahAREwjuwF9A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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
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: Fri, 18 May 2012 07:56:10 -0000

Hi Behcet,

Thanks for the document and I am some questions.

What's the major functionality differences from RFC4191?  I believe
both of 4191 and your draft is about configuring specific routes to
host/router.

Then technically, you defined three new options,
prefix/nexthop/nexthop-w-prefix, first why we need three new instead
of RIO in 4191, and how to relate the prefix option with nexthop
option if they are used combined.

Thanks and regards,
Zhen

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
<sarikaya2012@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> mif mailing list
> mif@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email