AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt
<Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de> Thu, 22 July 2010 12:48 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334373A6971 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_MISMATCH_DE=1.448, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kwb-1HqLHI08 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB153A688E for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 05:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Obv04-000EIc-CL for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:35:44 +0000
Received: from [62.225.183.131] (helo=tcmail83.telekom.de) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de>) id 1Obv01-000EHs-1c for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:35:41 +0000
Received: from s4de9jsaano.mgb.telekom.de (HELO S4DE9JSAANO.ost.t-com.de) ([10.125.177.105]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP; 22 Jul 2010 14:35:36 +0200
Received: from S4DE9JSAACY.ost.t-com.de ([10.125.177.233]) by S4DE9JSAANO.ost.t-com.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:35:34 +0200
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:35:33 +0200
Message-ID: <D83105B2AC38794CB78ADA2959F2C44F04613523@S4DE9JSAACY.ost.t-com.de>
In-reply-to: <C8679FD0.462A0%sgundave@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcsmFFxNk6Ntts6ipk+C17/0b0cd/gDhPx/Q
References: <4B79A004.40506@venaas.com> <C8679FD0.462A0%sgundave@cisco.com>
From: Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de
To: sgundave@cisco.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: stig@venaas.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Jul 2010 12:35:34.0676 (UTC) FILETIME=[61721540:01CB299A]
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
Hi Sri, had a read of your I-D right now and think that it is a very interesting and useful work. I see also some applicability in the BBF context for handling of RAs in a N:1 VLAN scenario for instance. Unfortunately I don't recall the status of the I-D after the last IETF, is it on the road to become a WG item? I would vote for that. Kind regards Olaf > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Sri Gundavelli > Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. Juli 2010 02:59 > An: IPv6 Operations > Cc: Stig Venaas > Betreff: Re: AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt > > Thanks to Stig for his review of the draft. Will reword the > below text, > should be in -01 version. > > Sri > > > > > ------ Forwarded Message > From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> > Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:03:29 -0800 > To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> > Subject: Re: L2 Unicast of multicast messages - ID > > >> I think the document is fine. I've followed some of the previous > >> discussion on this topic. Just one comment. > >> > >> In section 3 it says: > >> > >> address in the link-layer header will be an unicast > address. It > >> is up to to the system architecture as when to > transmit a IPv6 > >> multicast message as an link-layer unicast message, > as long as > >> there is no real impact to the multicast communication. > >> > >> This sentence is pretty vague. Especially "no real > impact", not sure > >> what that means. And what do you mean by "multicast communication". > >> > >> Also, the reason you may want the system architecture to transmit > >> unicast, is that it has a positive impact on the > communication, right? > >> If whether you use unicast or not has no impact, then this would be > >> pointless ;) > >> > > > > :) My point is that, if the usage of the semantic is used > in the right away, > > there should be any impact to the multicast communication. > If I'm hosting > > two IPv6 VLAN's on the same 802.11 link, if the AP ensures > the RA's are > > segregated and sent to the right groups, its to me no > impact to multicast > > communication. But, I see your point, this needs to worded > correctly. I > > will fix this in -01 version, posted it a hour back. > > Sorry I was a bit late. I think the draft is good. Just trying to be a > bit difficult here :) But I think it can be made clearer. > > Stig > > > >
- Re: AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unic… Sri Gundavelli
- AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-… Olaf.Bonness
- Re: AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unic… Sri Gundavelli