IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Teemu Savolainen <tsavo.stds@gmail.com> Thu, 08 December 2011 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tsavo.stds@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 E649721F87D9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 02:35:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 wPi7Hul2xZZN for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 02:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9E421F87D3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 02:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnk5 with SMTP id k5so2090721ggn.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 02:35:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=gjq8xKX5RPhmNpT2StSiIgZ2g6729CVFCqPkglM7EWY=; b=V7PVovvjUtXPfba8GzVqOtm4kLAIcvp8gYQItos/LDYQrRyoWYk7E41fcAZRxFQse1 4hEjXY7CgH9mfchJZSMQHVvE0Ng9Xzd8mKCFWApFKPxXKtwiupOS6YqXeMmpg+6HT4hQ G7MOjxCCJOD2ScIwDYobmktTAw8qIN6ltOhjE=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.45.102 with SMTP id l6mr550491obm.0.1323340510710; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 02:35:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.43.8 with HTTP; Thu, 8 Dec 2011 02:35:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC5E99F82D1@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz>
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-DBD9-4959-82F9-B23DCCE8FFA2@gmail.com> <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC5E99F82D1@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:35:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CABmgDzQnnDZ9_bsC5XYUygPVEduQdLTRTgCCzQt+6-dbLpLFUQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Teemu Savolainen <tsavo.stds@gmail.com>
To: Vízdal Aleš <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0444ef0b0eca6f04b39239d4"
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <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 10:35:12 -0000

+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