IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude

"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Thu, 08 December 2011 18:29 UTC

Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.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 25D4021F8B3A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:29:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.075
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.075 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.377, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 w2Aq3uasGtR8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:29:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 097A021F8B24 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:29:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=12466; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1323368960; x=1324578560; h=mime-version:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: references:from:to:cc; bh=SIxWVK3ZS8gzyxbJaRNJ7OBhMGCP3BjggfsR9ox12f0=; b=G+T358k5Px7guDDI7hh1Qedxd9gj7CeHD8pyomOylh5+wn4qHZfwvAKD 0spKg4VA5xakg1u2QvSwejUC6fR5sV7u61Fun6LHBFSNna3crg7N11szn rUR5WEXFQn4RQnuOzFGEuAgPtGd+ahpEATMN7vMsEJZ3w8gNR7F9H+w2A s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnYAABcB4U6tJXHA/2dsb2JhbABDgk2COZUmjyqBE4EFgXIBAQEDAQEBAQ8BCQcKAz4LBQcEAgEIDgMEAQEBCgYXAQICAgEBHwYfCQgBAQQBEggah2UImU8BjFuRLQSKJTNjBIgulyaHXA
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="4.71,320,1320624000"; d="scan'208,217"; a="42304358"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2011 18:29:19 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com [72.163.62.201]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pB8ITIVj032739; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 18:29:18 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-202.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Dec 2011 12:29:18 -0600
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CCB5D7.4BF6EAEB"
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:29:17 -0600
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303828ECE@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABmgDzQnnDZ9_bsC5XYUygPVEduQdLTRTgCCzQt+6-dbLpLFUQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude
Thread-Index: Acy1lRDEub/4d3JvSBmTA07haq2PCAAQfXRg
References: <CAF26956.183598%wbeebee@cisco.com><CAKD1Yr2fpp88J5XX=41TQd+SmZgF+k_GJY_ePE9UpTPkqB_fSg@mail.gmail.com><748E8EFF-BA36-42EF-A58A-C34FD8566E69@employees.org><CAKD1Yr3+V33Tzx-9pT_RrG-ZicwROqwBr8n2k6N-14HSfrw8-w@mail.gmail.com><591FE292-8D53-4C86-BFB1-71F0EF78A182@employees.org><CAKD1Yr03UcyqAOw+zZ6yo98epMdAE1VZx4buqNN6wXNS9AYUrw@mail.gmail.com><399AFFDF-5400-497A-9F47-C3C4519325B8@employees.org><CAKD1Yr0Xm6cY3SmxweM0E4vNy40eHDAmsZNZ6_9A=p_aX70rYA@mail.gmail.com><CAKD1Yr3HgecxhqWf89_uZt6yew-RLR=XfgM1zdaOq5HDzOUt3g@mail.gmail.com><5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303778431@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com><CAKD1Yr3qouFbJ1Zpi+qW7z7EophdVsd3uWJrQFKmQhnwMLyOJA@mail.gmail.com><5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C303778599@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com><88DA53CA-338E-4574-84AA-DAB8A2599187@steffann.nl><4EDA80AC.6030907@globis.net><435BDEA7-5582-418A-842A-607A37FDE96C@nominum.com><4EDA8DF0.7000803@globis.net><6F36EB9D-258A-4B08-903D-759746393F6D@nominum.com><4EDAA849.40208@globis.net><D015FA6A-DBD9-4 959-82F9 -B23DCCE8FFA 2@gmail.com><1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC5E99F82D1@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz> <CABmgDzQnnDZ9_bsC5XYUygPVEduQdLTRTgCCzQt+6-dbLpLFUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Teemu Savolainen <tsavo.stds@gmail.com>, Vízdal Aleš <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2011 18:29:18.0558 (UTC) FILETIME=[4C0F77E0:01CCB5D7]
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude
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, 08 Dec 2011 18:29:21 -0000

After my email from today explaining a few SP provisioning issues to work with for the pd-exclude, I personally do not have any issues with the pd-exclude draft.  I support the pd-exclude document to move forward.  I don’t make the decision to include the pd-exclude work in rfc6204bis.  It’s the v6ops WG that decides.

 

Regards back,

 

Hemant

 

From: Teemu Savolainen [mailto:tsavo.stds@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011 5:35 AM
To: Vízdal Aleš
Cc: jouni korhonen; Hemant Singh (shemant); Thomas Narten; Ray Hunter; v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude

 

+1 

I also want to state my support here in v6ops list for including the PD exclude option into 6204bis.

In the past we discussed about potential need to include proxy ND functionality in this document, mostly for cellular use-cases when network does not support PD, but we agreed that is not needed. We don't need to discuss that, but just wanted to make sure for you that it was different discussion than this one.

From browsing through the 100+ emails on this topic I could not see clear reason why to not include PD exclude.

Best regards,

Teemu

2011/12/8 Vízdal Aleš <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of jouni
> korhonen
> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 7:59 AM
> To: Hemant Singh
> Cc: Thomas Narten; Ray Hunter; v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-dhc-pd-exclude
>

> Hemant,
>
> On Dec 4, 2011, at 1:59 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
>
> > It's high time the subject of the email changed to the pd-exclude document rather
> than the rfc6204bis document for which the ship has sailed to include the pd-exclude
> in.   That said, one question I had was this.   How are network interfaces
>
> IMHO it is too early to state that the ship has sailed for RFC6204bis already.

[snip]

+1

What is preventing pd-exclude to be referenced in the 6240bis draft?

The consequence of pd-exclude not being considered will result in a safe mode
operation mode in the scenarios relying on pd-exclude (e.g. Prefix Delegation in 3GPP)
where the customer will be allocated a prefix, but just a half (the one excluding /64 used for
the wan link) of it will be delegated to be compliant with RFC3633.

Is it wise ignoring this consequence?
What needs to be done for the support of pd-exclude in the draft?

Ales


> - JOuni
>
>
> >
> > Hemant
> >
>
> [snip]
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email