IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] PD-exclude was approved by the IESG -> should be included into 6204bis

jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 28 February 2012 11:45 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@gmail.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 D64CE21F8615 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:45:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.957
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.957 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619]
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 aNncA8pkBscp for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:45:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD14421F860D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:45:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wgbdt10 with SMTP id dt10so2123922wgb.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jouni.nospam@gmail.com designates 10.180.24.7 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.24.7;
Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jouni.nospam@gmail.com designates 10.180.24.7 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jouni.nospam@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=jouni.nospam@gmail.com
Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.24.7]) by 10.180.24.7 with SMTP id q7mr37679682wif.14.1330429551992 (num_hops = 1); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:45:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=1/0dgvpxLw5qSaLTxHkAf4VUVvW+2l52W7Nc8xSCpY8=; b=czXCjPgFPCl9NByvtWIFHSOr6tleblrlVWOWphqwASD+mLz+1f4IJZtJoWzVrmRZzl 9Jpo9Nhj8K9S4uM1Eh3Kmd/s3IDAorMOh2VfSvWNJGctE17mlGVk8JcVi8m4XtVWIcfc Hcw0IleFh4BkgZmZLBbP79U65IQYry/QquA2Y=
Received: by 10.180.24.7 with SMTP id q7mr29894615wif.14.1330429551952; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:45:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.255.132.9] ([192.100.123.77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bg3sm28249997wib.10.2012.02.28.03.45.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:45:49 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: jouni korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87sjhv44gu.fsf@fatcat.cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:45:45 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0116E712-C8CB-48DE-A53A-E33E9F799592@gmail.com>
References: <CABmgDzR5dGLQyNC3mu_4y=RjOVRpqiGeqrTXRTcpNvkFtzEtow@mail.gmail.com> <2D09D61DDFA73D4C884805CC7865E611043C0B@GAALPA1MSGUSR9N.ITServices.sbc.com> <F6DBD3F6-71C8-47E2-BB5F-6CEB208BCB98@gmail.com> <87sjhv44gu.fsf@fatcat.cisco.com>
To: Anupam Kapoor <akapoor@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] PD-exclude was approved by the IESG -> should be included into 6204bis
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, 28 Feb 2012 11:45:53 -0000

> ,----
> |  korhonen> If the CE router does not support pd-exclude and still, against
> |  korhonen> 3GPP specifications, attempts prefix delegation the outcome is
> |  korhonen> undefined. The 3GPP specs say today "The UE shall include
> |  korhonen> OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE option code in an OPTION_ORO option.." etc.
> `----
> here are the relevant lines from sec:5.3.1.2.6 of 23.401 (ver:10.6.0)
> 
>      ,----
>      | If the UE had indicated that it supports prefix exclusion and the
>      | prefix to be delegated to the UE includes the /64 prefix that was
>      | allocated to the PDN Connection, the PDN GW shall  
>      | utilise the prefix exclusion feature as specified for DHCPv6 Prefix
>      | Delegation in draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude-00 [70] 
>      `----
> from which it seems (to me at least) that ue *may* support
> prefix-exclusion i.e. it is not mandatory for the ue to send
> 'PD-EXCLUDE' if supports prefix-delegation.

Hmm.. you could actually be right with that interpretation :) That
would then mean SHOULD is appropriate. 

- Jouni


> 
> kind regards
> anupam

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email