IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC

<holger.metschulat@telekom.de> Thu, 26 September 2013 08:02 UTC

Return-Path: <holger.metschulat@telekom.de>
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 325E421F8D0B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:02:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 EUlXjf-W-rmA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:02:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [80.149.113.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B429021F9951 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 01:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: holger.metschulat@telekom.de
Received: from he113495.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.206.92.152]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 26 Sep 2013 10:01:06 +0200
Received: from HE111490.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.206.92.87]) by HE113495.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:01:06 +0200
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:01:05 +0200
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC
Thread-Index: Ac64CG//QiV+Qe/6QoWz4LTV+SLSRgChaSoA
Message-ID: <AFAB9759B1DE4F4187483FC509B50199011695E84DD2@HE111490.emea1.cds.t-internal.com>
References: <5236a1bc.82a8700a.3a3f.ffffc0d8@mx.google.com> <1379541548.63737.YahooMailNeo@web142504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <AFAB9759B1DE4F4187483FC509B501990115CC3ACBF7@HE111490.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> <CABmgDzRGteFt1-s0V1qD1m9f7_aZHEXfmbYkD6Nv2xoXEz6EFQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1309222034420.32315@uplift.swm.pp.se> <B421DC34-8A84-40FC-BE20-A8935CB7E5D1@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1309230453340.32315@uplift.swm.pp.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1309230453340.32315@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Accept-Language: de-DE
Content-Language: de-DE
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: de-DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share 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, 26 Sep 2013 08:02:41 -0000

Hi all,

fine with me as well. However, Req#10 is not the correct place since that's only about the DHCPv6 client mode of the mobile. Around Req#27 would be a better place, however, the link to RFC6204 and Req L-10 there more or less indicates what must be done without explicitly stating the detailed procedure.

Holger

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Mikael Abrahamsson
Gesendet: Montag, 23. September 2013 04:55
An: Jouni Korhonen
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Betreff: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC

On Sun, 22 Sep 2013, Jouni Korhonen wrote:

>
> On Sep 22, 2013, at 9:36 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Teemu Savolainen wrote:
>>
>>> Secondly, I don't agree DHCP server support is required, as the CE can include the DNS addresses in RAs as specified in RFC6106.
>>
>> There are very few products out there that supports this way of conveying DNS resolver information.
>>
>> I am not opposed to say that providing basic 64share might skip supplying DNS resolver over IPv6, but then I agree with a few mail back where it was said we should have another document recommending how to get DNS resolver working for IPv6 only clients.
>
> Why wouldn't we add this (rather obvious) requirement to draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile? That would basically be just a clarification to Req#10.

Absolutely fine, draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile could be this "other document".

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email