IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] disconnected homenets

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 24 June 2014 02:51 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6808F1B2812 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.851
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.851 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 9ct_B75yxqXs for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8AA31B2803 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:51:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BJC78937; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:51:54 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.36) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 03:51:53 +0100
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.24]) by nkgeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:51:48 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] disconnected homenets
Thread-Index: AQHPjvn4gi2S87lwekmCkB9ETFGLgpt+VcmAgAE5GcA=
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:51:48 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8DD918@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8B6B9A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <1401141423.52956.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <5383C2CF.6040205@gmail.com> <1401230263.69077.YahooMailNeo@web162206.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <53854B03.8040702@gmail.com> <1401312298.99614.YahooMailNeo@web162205.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <53A84023.1060008@gmail.com> <679AE942-6F18-4398-B490-E3B4BB0143AA@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|7c46efd98967914b02ed58be3ebddf5cq5MGHg03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|679AE942-6F18-4398-B490-E3B4BB0143AA@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <53A84ABE.4060800@gmail.com> <B10A9221-C91D-4865-BA81-4A097F7F939C@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|36082a4d67cd4038a8ec1e7ab06258cbq5MH5K03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|B10A9221-C91D-4865-BA81-4A097F7F939C@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|36082a4d67cd4038a8ec1e7ab06258cbq5MH5K03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|B10A9221-C91D-4865-BA81-4A097F7F939C@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.132]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D8DD918nkgeml506mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/2AvCs0OZ56cbUSJR7RxO_kL059I
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] disconnected homenets
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 02:51:58 -0000

Hi Tim,


It may be that this requirement will make the in-home Hosts not capable of talking to each other simply because not implementing RFC4191.  And, certainly RFC4191 is not for Router-to-Router communications.

The benefit of the doubt.

This topic was discussed a year or so ago in the context of the draft on ULA usage, e.g. see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg16405.html

It would be good to ensure this is captured in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02

[Bing] The default route had been mentioned in Section 3.2 and Section 3.3. But we didn't mentioned RFC4191 relevant consideration, I think it would be good to add some text.
Thanks for your remind.

Best regards,
Bing

Tim



Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email