Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem

"Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 17:41 UTC

Return-Path: <leo.liubing@huawei.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 74DBD21E8135 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:41:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.979, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 cj-IOp2R4HXz for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4E221F9FC3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:40:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AXO58944; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:40:05 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:39:26 +0000
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:40:03 +0000
Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.252]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 6 Nov 2013 01:39:57 +0800
From: "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>, =?gb2312?B?yfHD999f1NU=?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
Thread-Index: AQHOzltsXXG/hvZHw0OAdgyFq+29zZoVi9gAgABL/ACAAECpgIAA5VkL
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:39:55 +0000
Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D7F07F3@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <201310211245.r9LCj0B29668@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050427070.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAJE_bqcsqpeERWmgaC5xW9J_zpBJYCGeVzQmF7y2Ki3jG+AVag@mail.gmail.com>, <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311051251410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311051251410.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.132.36]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-liu-bonica-v6ops-dhcpv6-slaac-problem
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:41:53 -0000

Hi, Mikael

> Yes, I know this is about address configuration. I am still curious if all
> OSes keep the /64 interface route when A changes to 0 (or is 0 to begin
> with). If you feel this is out of scope that's fine, then my curiosity
> will stay unanswered.

We did not pay attention to the /64 deprecated or not in the routes. Maybe we'll do it in further tests.

Regards,
Bing