Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis WGLC

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

On May 15, 2013, at 00:59 , Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> RAy,
> 
> On May 14, 2013, at 9:55 AM, Ray Hunter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Quote draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis:
>> "The Router Advertisement contains a maximum
>>  of one prefix information option and the advertised prefix cannot
>>  ever be used for on-link determination (see [RFC6459], Section 5.2)."
>> 
>> Quote RFC4862:
>> Router Advertisements also contain zero or more Prefix Information
>>  options that contain information used by stateless address
>>  autoconfiguration to generate global addresses.
>> 
>> What breaks if an end device supports receiving more than one PIO in an RA?
> 
> Probably nothing. There just are no gateways that would put more than one
> PIO in an RA.
> 
> The language is there just because 3GPP specs are explicit on stating it 
> as a restriction to SLAAC.

It's kind of a dumb restriction IMHO. I don't think it is valuable to bring dumb
restrictions from 3GPP over to IETF unless it is necessary to avoid incompatibility.

> 
>> Advising implementers of cellular hosts to box themselves into a corner
>> based on the current implementation of the network equipment would seem
>> to me to be a bad idea if it isn't absolutely necessary.
> 
> Well.. I do not disagree here :)
> 
+1

>> Section 2.6. "Consequently, sending MLD reports for link-local addresses
>> in a 3GPP environment may not always be necessary"
>> 
>> What does this tell me as a developer? How do I discover this?
>> Is it harmful to never send MLD? Is it harmful to always send MLD?
>> That I need to try once and see if sending MLD is necessary (to avoid
>> unnecessary 3gpp traffic)?
> 
> Right. I could say "Consequently, sending MLD reports for link-local
> addresses in a 3GPP environment is not necessary" That would be more
> explicit?

It would be more explicit. Would it be correct? If so, then it should be stated this way.

>> Section 2,10
>> 
>> "The cellular host should implement the Default Router Preferences and
>> More-Specific Routes extension to extension to Router Advertisement
>>  messages [RFC4191]. These options me be useful for cellular hosts
>> that also have additional interfaces on which IPv6 is used."
>> 
>> Wasn't this specifically declared out of scope in Section 1.1? "If a
>> cellular host has additional interfaces on which IP is used, (such as
>> Ethernet, WLAN, Bluetooth, etc.) then there may be additional
>> requirements for the device, beyond what is discussed in this document."
> 
> Right. So you want that removed?

I don't support removal. If anything, I would suggest that more explicit information
about the various scenarios and their considerations is required. If not in this
document, then somewhere else that is referenced by this document.

Instead, I think an update to 1.1 mentioning that the treatment in 2.10 is not
complete rather than out of scope might be worth while.

Owen