IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis WGLC

"Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com> Thu, 16 May 2013 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <fred@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C05811E80A6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.987
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.987 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.612, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 keKWNI7HlAPs for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B416D21F8E3C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2013 12:08:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1161; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368731323; x=1369940923; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=RNpruMdxbWfm2YguQG7nkE1ADzDml/lNk6hCJHdvYCU=; b=RaUcVN4n0pn1jaetKHs6pLuWSbVuq3DwqyiuGU+p9jofv5eEfm8T4o4p qf7nLcAogjqpSAVPQ5BI8nFqG83mQmmuKc4ANDg3AOYp6axqthp5sbrhh ufP+sMgKCSDW4heOE2n98JWMoq5DUXbktWKyLWTXUyql3nXbrSVrPqeRn M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFABMulVGtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABbgwfCA30WdIIfAQEBAwE6PwULAgEIEhAUECERFw4CBA4FCIdyAwkGs1ENiE+MSIIkAjEHgnRhA5VSjgOFI4MQgiY
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,685,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="208455237"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 May 2013 19:08:43 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4GJ8hd9020211 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 May 2013 19:08:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([169.254.9.220]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 16 May 2013 14:08:42 -0500
From: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
To: Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis WGLC
Thread-Index: AQHOUmjHnjaky0w5lku9hVnCVzjKeA==
Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 19:08:42 +0000
Message-ID: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B8EA56B@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com>
References: <8C48B86A895913448548E6D15DA7553B859B35@xmb-rcd-x09.cisco.com> <51916286.9070101@globis.net> <038302EE-DAE7-4722-B2A6-5F65F789F959@gmail.com> <5191DFC6.4050903@globis.net> <30285AC2-5365-4353-9465-5D42D5AFEA1F@gmail.com> <FB14A1A3-586C-488E-91C9-89241704255D@delong.com> <BF20A3F3-8B2B-4889-8D8C-A63B3945D7F5@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BF20A3F3-8B2B-4889-8D8C-A63B3945D7F5@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.19.64.117]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F412B93E94E14941A67AD852941C3419@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis WGLC
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 16 May 2013 19:08:49 -0000

On May 16, 2013, at 12:35 AM, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't disagree about the "dumbness".. However, that is a restriction of the 
> link itself and buried pretty deep in the architecture. So, if the UE receives
> an RA with multiple PIOs a) someone is goofing around or b) the network side
> is broken. In that regard, I would still like to keep some text around this
> peculiarity in the document. Would it be acceptable to state the fact and say
> something along the lines that changing the UE stack implementation to meet
> this link requirement is not really needed?

</chair>
>From my perspective, it sounds like a good idea. Making the UE accept multiple prefixes even if they will not be sent is simply robust software design. Imagine that someone sent a n RA with two PIOs (pick your reason that might happen - maybe it's a trial or something). Making a software change on the UE that caused it to not understand the information element could cause one of several kinds of failure. I'd suggest that the document recommend that the UE be robust to the potential event.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email