Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-pdm-dest-option-04.txt

Nalini Elkins <> Sun, 27 October 2013 14:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C62621E80BC for <>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:59:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.425
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id by3jBMbqDBMz for <>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:59:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC20D21E80C9 for <>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 27 Oct 2013 14:59:10 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 27 Oct 2013 14:59:10 -0000
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 27 Oct 2013 14:59:10 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
Received: (qmail 35450 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Oct 2013 14:59:10 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s1024; t=1382885950; bh=wOKNkdars8PLDZG1U2pbwEK9JDzg+hQGDiwhUmbD9gU=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=M9GqXRiO8q9arPfEFFHASp03HBz85vQSFFvRCF6shTKjyq4uVWdB6jXMwkhXAXkgjQAKUCoiIATJqmm1mVJs3b9yIXMHITxh3Hx9J9dx9fSy/u7rF/CocW/mm+pj7z4mRTla6FCeLXyARMcrLDAkqIED8ovNXo9rxrJDgXICjOQ=
X-YMail-OSG: E3Q7NPIVM1mjLxS93qGStooceTupQQ440.tdN4CMPnzFe3I zCLYKlmGMdG1jbDG00jNE6DXuNBDOPrOzCC4ZiA077w.FwCFw3xLZ50sWFMs dSD6X1WoNwlDOy0NHkgeIK6dt3Z7ruzDuwdzCn.zqCuuqUGHtI_bao4nFVCs QDwJSXFEb_4gLOSlsAABbOHIdj7WoUTT8oMvU.a62DikDZdv09dkEegYmL8t HkSh_u0Z2wcmDF1Lu7rEbTiAKCqgq3F.WmvRFBMxwcqldGupxm01nuKH3WBG 1jCj3I1vz9mYY4FWBzgkzmAim.km4YECTpDBS9NkeWEPld4xA6OUjOs9rlO5 LuCpdUFhY0Jv9ieFmzupyOz0AgBBPpl4RJBYAcJtkE8JLY3CsBSG7er1bL9U 1Dv_TxRAQ5miJdJfpyaKUp4c.mGb.XGsNZTUPVyXKU93b9TkDEJIXv7q2sjg e3XNNz6.UddmWGS0OYLfishAECfDO9pNEmm.4Ol58jYSfF8NvMU1h0MUaQFX Zv.TSHkmynEfa6684duBuGek4lNMr3GNPgeJnGRH2.dqhviQxHXXRdOUMxNh 47h9hsyJx.oSHv97glGCT47BjSsXqerN2FJah5kbBTMwy0mFpAoqWyt5i606 AWspLK6tsLL2SYeYj_BcaBDXiJfJwdSm5Hz4CdUWXAU2oL6k.K_oYLtPI
Received: from [] by via HTTP; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:59:10 PDT
X-Rocket-MIMEInfo: 002.001, PiA.WW91ciBwb2ludCA0IHNlZW1zIHRvIGluZGljYXRlIHRoYXQgYWxsIG5vZGVzIGluIGEgZGVzaXJlZCB0aW1lIHN5bmNocm9uaXphdGlvbiBkb21haW4gbmVlZCB0byBiZSBzeW5jaGVkIHRvIHRoZSBzYW1lIG1hc3RlciBjbG9jay7CoCBUaGlzIGhhcyBub3QgYmVlbiBteSBleHBlcmllbmNlLsKgIEFzIGxvbmcgYXMgdGhlIHJlcXVpcmVkIFN0cmF0dW0gbGV2ZWwgaXMgcmVhbGl6ZWQsIGZvciB0aGUgbGV2ZWwgPj5vZiBhY2N1cmFjeSByZXF1aXJlZCBieSB0aGUgc2l0dWF0aW9uIG9yIGFwcGxpY2F0aW8BMAEBAQE-
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nalini Elkins <>
To: joel jaeggli <>, "Ackermann, Michael" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1551098171-557329641-1382885950=:30079"
Cc: Ray Hunter <>, v6ops WG <>, 6man WG <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] New Version Notification for draft-elkins-6man-ipv6-pdm-dest-option-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Nalini Elkins <>
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 14:59:34 -0000

> >Your point 4 seems to indicate that all nodes in a desired time synchronization domain need to be synched to the same master clock.  This has not been my experience.  As long as the required Stratum level is realized, for the level >>of accuracy required by the situation or application, the proper level of time synchronization is achieved.  Example would be that if one node in the NTP domain is referencing a GPS Stratum 0 and another node is referencing a >>separate Stratum 0 source, the two nodes should be Stratum 1 and within that level of accuracy.  

>stratum is not an indication of either precision or accuracy it’s an inidication of a position within the NTP heirachary.

Guys, you know, I wonder if this discussion of time synchronization is distracting us from the point of our proposal.   

What we are advocating for is a capability for embedded diagnostics and performance for all upper layer protocols that is relatively simple to implement.   I am thinking more and more that our PDM 2 proposal which does not require time synchronization is the way to go.   Let me say that this is my opinion only!   Others on our team believe that they can indeed do time synch within their data centers and want the enhanced capabilities of PDM 1 which requires time synch.

BTW, we have discussed the proposals for PDMs already with one end host OS vendor who, on initial look, believes it will be easy to implement and should be quite useful.   We are setting up more discussions with their engineering team to see if they can tell us where the pit falls in our thinking might be.   I hope I can get them to comment publicly.   But, that will take a while.

Also, one of my guys has already done a prototype implementation of PDM 1 going from a simple client to server which I can show all who are interested in Vancouver.   


Nalini Elkins
Inside Products, Inc.
(831) 659-8360