Re: AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt
Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Sun, 18 July 2010 01:11 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 A8B013A6A31 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, 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 zc2lSpKWYRjR for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D81D3A6A35 for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 17 Jul 2010 18:11:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1OaIBk-000DqN-9X for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:57:04 +0000
Received: from [171.68.10.87] (helo=sj-iport-5.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <sgundave@cisco.com>) id 1OaIBg-000Dpi-PW for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:57:01 +0000
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-5.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvsEADvuQUyrR7H+/2dsb2JhbACfcXGkT5l1hSUEhACEV4I0
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.55,220,1278288000"; d="scan'208";a="227856624"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com ([171.71.177.254]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2010 00:56:59 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o6I0uxGY019091; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:56:59 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:56:59 -0700
Received: from 10.32.246.212 ([10.32.246.212]) by xmb-sjc-21b.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 00:56:58 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.25.0.100505
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:58:40 -0700
Subject: Re: AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
CC: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
Message-ID: <C8679FD0.462A0%sgundave@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcsmFFxNk6Ntts6ipk+C17/0b0cd/g==
In-Reply-To: <4B79A004.40506@venaas.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2010 00:56:59.0127 (UTC) FILETIME=[202DE070:01CB2614]
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
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