From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 07:24:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07465 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:24:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQn5w-0001EI-MP for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:24:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1CO42G004723 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:24:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQn5w-0001E6-HX for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:24:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07429 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:23:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQn5v-0000WQ-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:24:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQn5v-0000WM-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:24:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQn4w-00018E-Hi; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:23:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQn4U-00016Y-1J for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:22:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07389 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQn4T-0000VN-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:22:33 -0500 Received: from uillean.fuaim.com ([206.197.161.140]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQn4S-0000Uw-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:22:32 -0500 Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) by uillean.fuaim.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB1CM0V15182; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:22:00 -0800 Received: from innovationslab.net (md-wmnsmd-cuda2-c6a-a-4.chvlva.adelphia.net [68.65.120.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by clairseach.fuaim.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB1CRItX019986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 04:27:22 -0800 Message-ID: <3FCB3251.5090004@innovationslab.net> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:21:37 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wes Hardaker CC: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: comments on rfc2011 update References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Wes Hardaker wrote: > Unfortunately, I have just learned that I'd really need this update. > I'll say this is unfortunate because the cutoff date for comment is > tomorrow, and I haven't had a chance to read the document. I would encourage you to make comments anyway. This MIB won't be published right away due to a dependency on an updated Inet Address TC document. > > However, a really really really quick scan produced a couple of > comments. > > 1) The description field for the ipAddressEntry object is simply > ridiculously short: > "inet addr entry" > > 2) Was there every discussion about making this table writable? One > of the most longstanding needs within MIBs has been the ability to > assign addresses to interfaces. I will have to go back and search > the mail archives to find out if this was ever discussed, but it > would be pretty simple, I would think, to make this table > writable. This is the obvious place to make support for settable > addresses, so I'm curious as to why it wasn't done... > I don't recall this specific topic being discussed. However, there are several MIBs that have gone to having multiple conformance statements. One conformance statement handles read-only and the other read-write. As for why it wasn't done, these updates have been trying to keep the changes to just making the documents support IPv6. Though, we did break that with TCP-ESTATS... Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 07:49:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08270 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:49:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnUM-00032O-7v for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:49:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB1CnIQD011675 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:49:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnUL-00032E-Vr for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:49:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08191 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:49:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnUL-0000uB-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:49:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnUK-0000u7-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:49:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnU6-0002vG-Bw; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:49:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQnTr-0002sb-EI for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:48:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA08158 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:48:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnTq-0000t6-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:48:46 -0500 Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com ([144.254.74.5]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQnTq-0000sq-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 07:48:46 -0500 Received: from cisco.com (144.254.74.60) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Dec 2003 13:45:29 +0100 Received: from xbe-lon-302.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ams-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB1Cm0g4003615; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:48:01 +0100 (MET) Received: from xbe-lon-313.cisco.com ([64.103.99.73]) by xbe-lon-302.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:48:13 +0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: ND model for routers Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:48:11 -0000 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: ND model for routers Thread-Index: AcOz4Gl2zcO39qAMRhOW3oceJGmToQEJwOMg From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" To: "Mark Smith" Cc: , , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2003 12:48:13.0497 (UTC) FILETIME=[62013A90:01C3B809] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Exactly :) Seems to me that the "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" discussion had the wrong focus, as Pekka mentioned. The question may not be about the definition of a router, but rather how does a box with forwarding/redistributing capabilities present that to the network at ND level.=20 ND seems to say routers send RAs and the rest of the hosts send NAs. And the real world shows us nodes that do not wish to comply with the ND model. Proposal is to extend ND, not to change the world. Pascal > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Smith [mailto:ipv6@c753173126e0bc8b057a22829880cf26.nosense.org] > Sent: mercredi 26 novembre 2003 06:45 > To: Pascal Thubert (pthubert) > Cc: he@uninett.no; ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers" >=20 > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:22:43 -0000 > "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" wrote: >=20 > > - A PC with multiple Network addressable entities such as storage media >=20 > I had the maybe not so strange idea a while back of having all components within a PC have an > IPv6 address, or at least represented within the OS by an IPv6 eg keyboard, mouse, HDD etc. > I'm not necessarily suggesting that inter-device communication occurs over TCP or UDP though. > Just IPv6 addresses for management, and possibly other uses that I haven't thought of. >=20 > You could then do tricks such as if the user complains that their HDD has stopped working, > you could ping it over the network. Or have SNMP agents issue traps when eg. the keyboard > stops working. >=20 > I don't know whether this model would make the PC a router, or just that the PC's interface > to the network acts as a proxy for all the device's "internal" IPv6 addresses, performing > things such as DAD on their behalf. >=20 >=20 > Regards, > Mark. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 1 19:05:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13357 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:05:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQy2m-0005r2-J0 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:05:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB205W4T022500 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:05:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQy2m-0005qp-EY for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:05:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13337 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:05:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQy2j-0006B8-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:05:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQy2i-0006B5-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:05:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQy2I-0005l4-UY; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:05:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AQy1t-0005kb-BR for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:04:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13317 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 19:04:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQy1q-0006AT-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:04:34 -0500 Received: from unknown-1-11.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11] helo=mail.wrs.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AQy1p-00069t-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:04:33 -0500 Received: from nsh-opal.windriver.com ([147.11.38.226]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA00273; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 15:59:55 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031201155405.02a81ad0@mail.wrs.com> X-Sender: routhier@mail.wrs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:04:26 -0800 To: Brian Haberman , Wes Hardaker From: "Shawn A. Routhier" Subject: Re: comments on rfc2011 update Cc: ipv6@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <3FCB3251.5090004@innovationslab.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 07:21 AM 12/1/03 -0500, Brian Haberman wrote: >Wes Hardaker wrote: > >>Unfortunately, I have just learned that I'd really need this update. >>I'll say this is unfortunate because the cutoff date for comment is >>tomorrow, and I haven't had a chance to read the document. > >I would encourage you to make comments anyway. This MIB won't >be published right away due to a dependency on an updated Inet >Address TC document. > >>However, a really really really quick scan produced a couple of >>comments. >>1) The description field for the ipAddressEntry object is simply >> ridiculously short: >> "inet addr entry" As the editor I thought the description for the table object (ipAddressTable) covered the entry object as well and therefore repeating the same text would not be useful. Do you think there is something else that should be added to the description of the entry that isn't in the description of the table? DESCRIPTION "This table contains addressing information relevant to the entity's interfaces. This table does not contain multicast address information. Tables for such information should be contained in multicast specific MIBs such as RFC3019. Note well: When including IPv6 link-local addresses in this table the entry must use an InetAddressType of 'ipv6z' in order to differentiate between the possible interfaces." >>2) Was there every discussion about making this table writable? One >> of the most longstanding needs within MIBs has been the ability to >> assign addresses to interfaces. I will have to go back and search >> the mail archives to find out if this was ever discussed, but it >> would be pretty simple, I would think, to make this table >> writable. This is the obvious place to make support for settable >> addresses, so I'm curious as to why it wasn't done... > >I don't recall this specific topic being discussed. However, there are >several MIBs that have gone to having multiple conformance statements. >One conformance statement handles read-only and the other read-write. >As for why it wasn't done, these updates have been trying to keep the >changes to just making the documents support IPv6. Though, we did break >that with TCP-ESTATS... > >Brian As with Brian I don't recall this specific topic being discussed. >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn A. Routhier SMTS Wind River Networks Business Unit 510 749 2095 office 510 749 2560 fax www.windriver.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 06:08:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12029 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:08:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR8Nc-0001KH-IB for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:07:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2B7iCb005091 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:07:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR8Nb-0001Jm-LZ for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:07:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12008 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 06:07:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR8NX-00052Q-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:07:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR8NX-00052N-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:07:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR8Mw-00019v-Dq; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:07:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AR0jI-0006Gg-2F for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:57:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA17443 for ; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:57:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0jF-00001w-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:57:33 -0500 Received: from adsl-66-127-127-227.dsl.scrm01.pacbell.net ([66.127.127.227] helo=wanderer.hardakers.net ident=[9yCevM8HMPn8VY9sDoWRJsn/TcSfYlV8]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AR0jE-00001t-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 01 Dec 2003 21:57:32 -0500 Received: by wanderer.hardakers.net (Postfix, from userid 274) id 59570574AC; Mon, 1 Dec 2003 18:57:09 -0800 (PST) To: "Shawn A. Routhier" Cc: Brian Haberman , ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: comments on rfc2011 update References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031201155405.02a81ad0@mail.wrs.com> From: Wes Hardaker Organization: Sparta Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 18:57:08 -0800 In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20031201155405.02a81ad0@mail.wrs.com> (Shawn A. Routhier's message of "Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:04:26 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) XEmacs/21.5 (brussels sprouts, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:04:26 -0800, "Shawn A. Routhier" said: >>> 1) The description field for the ipAddressEntry object is simply >>> ridiculously short: >>> "inet addr entry" Shawn> As the editor I thought the description for the table object Shawn> (ipAddressTable) covered the entry object as well and therefore Shawn> repeating the same text would not be useful. Do you think there Shawn> is something else that should be added to the description of Shawn> the entry that isn't in the description of the table? "Internet address entry" would have been better. As is, it just appears as if the author was in a huge hurry. Have about: "An address mapping for a particular interface."? >>> 2) Was there every discussion about making this table writable? ... >> I don't recall this specific topic being discussed. Shawn> As with Brian I don't recall this specific topic being Shawn> discussed. Well, then my next question would then be: Is it too late to do this? It would basically just mean: 1) making ipAddressIfIndex, ipAddressType, & ipAddressPrefix MAX-ACCESS clauses read "read-create". 2) Adding a new column: "ipAddressRowStatus" of type RowStatus. 3) Maybe changing the conformance statements to allow the optionality of the writable aspect of it. -- Wes Hardaker Sparta -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 08:56:08 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17231 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:56:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARB0A-0008OO-6h for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:55:51 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2DtgCU032254 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:55:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARB09-0008O9-WE for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:55:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17190 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:55:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARB08-0000bv-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:55:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARB08-0000bs-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:55:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARAzX-0008ID-FG; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARAz2-0008Hc-1T for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:54:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA17155 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:54:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARAz0-0000a1-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:54:30 -0500 Received: from merkur.iu-bremen.de ([212.201.44.27]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARAyz-0000ZG-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:54:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by merkur.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B55F7C954; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:53:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from james.eecs.iu-bremen.de (unknown [212.201.47.4]) by merkur.iu-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C72C7B96B; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:53:56 +0100 (CET) Received: by james.eecs.iu-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6FE6D81E8; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:53:55 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:53:55 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Wes Hardaker Cc: "Shawn A. Routhier" , Brian Haberman , ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: comments on rfc2011 update Message-ID: <20031202135355.GA1610@iu-bremen.de> Reply-To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de Mail-Followup-To: Wes Hardaker , "Shawn A. Routhier" , Brian Haberman , ipv6@ietf.org References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031201155405.02a81ad0@mail.wrs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12pre8 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 06:57:08PM -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote: > Well, then my next question would then be: Is it too late to do this? > It would basically just mean: > > 1) making ipAddressIfIndex, ipAddressType, & ipAddressPrefix > MAX-ACCESS clauses read "read-create". > > 2) Adding a new column: "ipAddressRowStatus" of type RowStatus. > > 3) Maybe changing the conformance statements to allow the > optionality of the writable aspect of it. You probably also want to have a StorageType column for this. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder International University Bremen P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 2 17:12:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16553 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:12:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARIkW-0004KI-54 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:12:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB2MC3CM016619 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:12:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARIkV-0004Jd-62 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:12:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16459 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:11:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARIkS-00039s-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:12:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARIkS-00039j-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:12:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARIjX-0004BQ-KA; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:11:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARIit-00049l-9R for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:10:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA16222 for ; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARIiq-00033l-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:10:20 -0500 Received: from unknown-1-11.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11] helo=mail.wrs.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARIip-000328-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:10:20 -0500 Received: from nsh-opal.windriver.com ([147.11.38.226]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05670; Tue, 2 Dec 2003 14:09:15 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031202135712.02aa99e0@mail.wrs.com> X-Sender: routhier@mail.wrs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:14:17 -0800 To: Wes Hardaker From: "Shawn A. Routhier" Subject: Re: comments on rfc2011 update Cc: Brian Haberman , ipv6@ietf.org In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.2.20031201155405.02a81ad0@mail.wrs.com> <5.1.0.14.2.20031201155405.02a81ad0@mail.wrs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 06:57 PM 12/1/03 -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:04:26 -0800, "Shawn A. Routhier" said: > >>>> 1) The description field for the ipAddressEntry object is simply >>>> ridiculously short: >>>> "inet addr entry" > >Shawn> As the editor I thought the description for the table object >Shawn> (ipAddressTable) covered the entry object as well and therefore >Shawn> repeating the same text would not be useful. Do you think there >Shawn> is something else that should be added to the description of >Shawn> the entry that isn't in the description of the table? > >"Internet address entry" would have been better. As is, it just >appears as if the author was in a huge hurry. Have about: "An address >mapping for a particular interface."? > >>>> 2) Was there every discussion about making this table writable? >... >>> I don't recall this specific topic being discussed. > >Shawn> As with Brian I don't recall this specific topic being >Shawn> discussed. > >Well, then my next question would then be: Is it too late to do this? I suppose that's up to the chairs and the WG. The document has finished WG last call, I don't know if these changes would require a new last call or not. >It would basically just mean: > >1) making ipAddressIfIndex, ipAddressType, & ipAddressPrefix > MAX-ACCESS clauses read "read-create". > >2) Adding a new column: "ipAddressRowStatus" of type RowStatus. > >3) Maybe changing the conformance statements to allow the > optionality of the writable aspect of it. I think there's a little more - as Juergen pointed out there is the storage type. There may also need to be more text about default values (or the lack of them) when creating a row as well as the required fields for creating a row. >-- >Wes Hardaker >Sparta Shawn A. Routhier SMTS Wind River Networks Business Unit 510 749 2095 office 510 749 2560 fax www.windriver.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 3 17:07:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11767 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:07:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARf9U-0006ku-D8 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:07:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB3M7KId025964 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:07:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARf9U-0006ke-3r for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:07:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11710 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARf9R-0002vd-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:07:17 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARf9R-0002vZ-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:07:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ARf9P-0007n3-Ug for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:07:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARf8F-0006YL-Ao; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:06:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARf7y-0006XS-39 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:05:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11615 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 17:05:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARf7v-0002sp-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:05:43 -0500 Received: from evrtwa1-ar8-4-65-030-212.evrtwa1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.65.30.212] helo=tndh.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARf7u-0002sm-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:05:43 -0500 Received: from eaglet (127.0.0.1:4346) by tndh.net with [XMail 1.17 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id for from ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:05:49 -0800 From: "Tony Hain" To: "'Erik Nordmark'" , "'Fred Templin'" Cc: "'Pekka Savola'" , "'Nick 'Sharkey' Moore'" , Subject: RE: routers - (was: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers") Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 14:07:39 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcO0p6ZamcjlE3cNRt6c1wGXr/IqoQFQI4zg Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Erik Nordmark wrote: > > Hosts with embedded gateway > > functions, as described in RFC 1122, section 3.3.4.2 under: "Weak ES > > Model" also qaulify as routers, and it doesn't matter at all what > > different routers advertise - they are all still just *routers*. > > That wouldn't be consistent with the definition of router > in RFC 2460; a node which forwards packets not explicitly addressed > to itself. > A host in the weak ES model would still only handle packets destined to > the addresses assigned to that host; hence it isn't a router per the > RFC 2460 definition. What does one call a device that runs an app which acts as an intermediary to set up or authenticate access to an iSCSI array? Connecting to the app would imply 'host', but if that is a multi-party app and the node simply forwards subsequent packets directly to the array, it would fit 'router'. We should stop talking about boxes and talk about functions that any specific node might perform. Some operational environments want to dedicate a box to a function, and others want to minimize the number of managed objects so they will run multiple functions on a box. Tony -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:15:40 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19703 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:15:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrS9-0005ix-J9 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:15:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4BFPXB021999 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:15:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrS9-0005ik-EN for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:15:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19674 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:15:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrS5-0006Fq-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:15:21 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrS5-0006Fm-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:15:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrQn-0005VR-FT; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrPu-0005Sn-K9 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:13:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19617 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:12:49 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrPq-0006EZ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:13:02 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrPp-0006EW-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:13:02 -0500 Received: from esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir01nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.33]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB4BD2w02404 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:13:02 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:13:02 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:13:01 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:13:01 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcOwXU8bWfl2A+4wSDqdrBd0g9t7JwJ96ycw To: , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2003 11:13:01.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[94E89F20:01C3BA57] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Thomas, The 2nd paragraph of the current node requirements draft says For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router, hosts that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. For IPv6 Nodes that do not implement DHCP, the 'O' flag of a Router Advertisement can be ignored. Furthermore, in the absence of a router, these types of node are not required to initiate DHCP. You said: > For my tastes, there is too much protocol specification above (use of > MUST language). Better to just cite the existing standards. and: For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those nodes should use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462). In addition, in the absence of a router, hosts that implement DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. For IPv6 Nodes that do not implement DHCP, the 'O' flag of a Router Advertisement can be ignored. Furthermore, in the absence of a router, these types of node are not required to initiate DHCP. > Perhaps because folk have forgotten about existing text in 2461 & > 2462? :-) >=20 > From section RFC 2461 6.3.7: >=20 > > If a host sends MAX_RTR_SOLICITATIONS solicitations, and receives = no > > Router Advertisements after having waited = MAX_RTR_SOLICITATION_DELAY > > seconds after sending the last solicitation, the host concludes = that > > there are no routers on the link for the purpose of [ADDRCONF]. > > However, the host continues to receive and process Router > > Advertisements messages in the event that routers appear=20 > on the link. >=20 > RFC 2462, Section 5.5.2 says: >=20 > > 5.5.2. Absence of Router Advertisements > >=20 > > If a link has no routers, a host MUST attempt to use stateful > > autoconfiguration to obtain addresses and other configuration > > information. An implementation MAY provide a way to disable the > > invocation of stateful autoconfiguration in this case, but the > > default SHOULD be enabled. From the perspective of > > autoconfiguration, a link has no routers if no Router = Advertisements > > are received after having sent a small number of Router = Solicitations > > as described in [DISCOVERY]. >=20 > We can debate whether the current text makes sense, but it reflects > the thinking at the time... The text I have is this, let me know if anyone has problems with the = text. I have tried to stay true to 2461 & 2462. John 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses when it is connected to a link over which it receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed address configuration) set and which contains no prefixes advertised for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). In this situation, the IPv6 Node will be unable to communicate with other off-link nodes unless a global or site-local IPv6 address is manually configured. An IPv6 node that receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag set and that contains advertised prefixes will configure interfaces with both stateless autoconfiguration addresses and addresses obtained through DHCP. For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes should use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462) for address configuration. In addition,=20 in the absence of a router, IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST = attempt=20 to use DHCP for address configuration. 5.3.2 Other Stateful Configuration DHCP provides the ability to provide other configuration information to the node. An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be unable to obtain other configuration information such as the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected to a link over which the node receives a router advertisement in which the 'O' flag ("Other stateful configuration") is set. For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those nodes should use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462) to obtain other=20 configuration. In addition, in the absence of a router, hosts that = implement=20 DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. For IPv6 Nodes that do not implement = DHCP, the=20 'O' flag of a Router Advertisement can be ignored. Furthermore, in = the absence=20 of a router, these types of node are not required to initiate DHCP. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:28:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19962 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:28:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARre4-0006Ck-Sb for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:27:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4BRivZ023844 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:27:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARre4-0006CV-Lu for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:27:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19940 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:27:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARre0-0006O9-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:27:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARre0-0006O6-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:27:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrdN-00062n-Va; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrcc-00062Q-Gv for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:26:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA19919 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:25:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrcY-0006NS-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:26:10 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrcX-0006MY-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:26:09 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB4BPZw03843; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:25:35 +0200 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:25:35 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: john.loughney@nokia.com cc: narten@us.ibm.com, , Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes should use DHCP Why do you keep using constructs like this? Why not just: IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP should use DHCP [...] (the same in the text later.) > For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those > nodes should use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with > the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462) to obtain other > configuration. In addition, in the absence of a router, hosts that implement > DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. Use DHCP for what? both address config (if available) as well? ... Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It is not clear to which you're referring to here. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:30:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20121 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrgw-0006YO-Kn for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:30:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4BUgkb025186 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:30:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrgw-0006Y9-EZ for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:30:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20091 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:30:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrgs-0006QV-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:30:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrgr-0006QS-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:30:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrgK-0006NV-BM; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:30:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrfN-0006MA-0W for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:29:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20003 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:28:47 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrfI-0006PI-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:29:00 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrfI-0006PC-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:29:00 -0500 Received: from esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir01nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.33]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB4BT0w23514 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:29:01 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir01nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:29:00 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:28:59 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:28:59 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6WVe6BbS+pn/ySmOO0u/2Q4u5rAAAERlw To: Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2003 11:28:59.0805 (UTC) FILETIME=[CFD2A4D0:01C3BA59] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Pekka, > > For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes=20 > should use DHCP >=20 > Why do you keep using constructs like this? Why not just: >=20 > IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP should use DHCP [...] Matter of taste. If really bothers you, I can adjust the text. =20 > > For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those > > nodes should use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement = with > > the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462) to obtain other=20 > > configuration. In addition, in the absence of a router, hosts = that implement=20 > > DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP.=20 >=20 > Use DHCP for what? both address config (if available) as well? The text says: ... to obtain other configuration. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:33:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20319 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:33:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrjq-00070s-Cq for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:33:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4BXgei026952 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:33:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrjq-00070d-6Q for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:33:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20285 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:33:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrjm-0006UI-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:33:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrjl-0006UF-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:33:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrjC-0006pN-IE; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:33:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARriJ-0006mr-Cx for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:32:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20214 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:31:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARriF-0006T8-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:32:03 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARriE-0006RQ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:32:02 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB4BVVf03931; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:31:31 +0200 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:31:31 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: john.loughney@nokia.com cc: narten@us.ibm.com, , Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > > For those IPv6 Nodes (acting as hosts) that implement DHCP, those > > > nodes should use DHCP upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with > > > the 'O' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462) to obtain other > > > configuration. In addition, in the absence of a router, hosts that implement > > > DHCP MUST attempt to use DHCP. > > > > Use DHCP for what? both address config (if available) as well? > > The text says: > > ... to obtain other configuration. Yes, in the first sentence. No, in the second. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:39:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20547 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:39:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrpe-0007kT-Kx for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:39:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4BdgoI029779 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:39:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrpe-0007kE-AF for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:39:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20512 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:39:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrpa-0006a4-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:39:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrpZ-0006a1-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:39:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrp0-0007aI-QT; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:39:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARroo-0007ZP-9F for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:38:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20438 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:38:32 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARroj-0006Y3-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:38:46 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com ([131.228.20.27]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARroj-0006Xz-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:38:45 -0500 Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB4BcjV06537 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:38:45 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:38:45 +0200 Received: from esebh005.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.86]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:38:45 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh005.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:38:44 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:38:44 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6Wirhmqi93iiOQw2BRBNZZsLMHwAAPWOg To: Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2003 11:38:44.0957 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C99C0D0:01C3BA5B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pekka, > > > Use DHCP for what? both address config (if available) as well? > >=20 > > The text says: > >=20 > > ... to obtain other configuration. >=20 > Yes, in the first sentence. No, in the second. It can be added to the 2nd sentence. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:41:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20645 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:41:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrqd-000883-JM for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:40:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4BehdI031241 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:40:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrqd-00087o-Ch for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:40:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20600 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:40:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrqZ-0006bn-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:40:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrqY-0006bk-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:40:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrq1-0007og-LF; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:40:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrpF-0007dU-30 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:39:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20472 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:38:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrpA-0006Yu-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:39:12 -0500 Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([152.78.70.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrpA-0006Yq-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:39:12 -0500 Received: from pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ns1 [152.78.68.1]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28618 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:39:12 GMT Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (IDENT:root@login [152.78.68.162]) by pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26088 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:39:10 GMT Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB4BdAe09819 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:39:10 GMT Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:39:10 +0000 From: Tim Chown To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Message-ID: <20031204113910.GF6808@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mail-Followup-To: ipv6@ietf.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact helpdesk@ecs.soton.ac.uk for more information X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It > is not clear to which you're referring to here. Does that matter to the client? Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:41:53 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20711 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:41:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrrY-0008OR-Ed for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:41:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4Bfecd032257 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:41:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrrY-0008O9-8e for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:41:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20683 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:41:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrrU-0006dP-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:41:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrrT-0006dM-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:41:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrqx-000891-V9; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:41:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrqG-0007vn-Gb for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:40:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20573 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:40:02 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrqC-0006b3-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:40:16 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrqB-0006aw-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:40:15 -0500 Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB4BeFw10085 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:40:15 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:40:14 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:40:14 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:40:14 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6WVe6BbS+pn/ySmOO0u/2Q4u5rAAAdoRw To: Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2003 11:40:14.0946 (UTC) FILETIME=[623CFC20:01C3BA5B] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pekka, > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in = > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It=20 > is not clear to which you're referring to here. There is no discussion of stateless DHCP, the section heading is: 5.3 Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) - RFC3315 John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:44:52 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20871 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:44:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARruR-0000Kr-D5 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:44:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4Bidr0001283 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:44:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARruR-0000Kc-7d for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:44:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20837 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:44:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARruN-0006hQ-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:44:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARruM-0006hN-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:44:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrtp-00008e-2k; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARrt6-00007d-Lr for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:43:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA20776 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:42:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrt2-0006fp-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:43:12 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARrt1-0006f2-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:43:11 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB4BgaF04205; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:42:36 +0200 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:42:36 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Tim Chown cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) In-Reply-To: <20031204113910.GF6808@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Tim Chown wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in > > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It > > is not clear to which you're referring to here. > > Does that matter to the client? The sentences start basically like, "If the node implements DHCP, it MUST/SHOULD do foo". Does a stateless DHCP count as implmenting DHCP? Is stateless DHCP non-compliant with Node Requirements? -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:52:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21078 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:52:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs1M-0000pf-3V for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:51:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4BpmSv003193 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:51:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs1L-0000pQ-Ui for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:51:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21049 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:51:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs1H-0006sl-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:51:43 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs1H-0006sh-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:51:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs0c-0000bo-NA; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:51:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs0G-0000av-G5 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:50:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21017 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:50:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs0C-0006qz-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:50:36 -0500 Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([152.78.70.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs0B-0006qv-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:50:35 -0500 Received: from pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ns1 [152.78.68.1]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA28934 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:50:35 GMT Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (IDENT:root@login [152.78.68.162]) by pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27592 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:50:33 GMT Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB4BoX210185 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:50:33 GMT Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:50:33 +0000 From: Tim Chown To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Message-ID: <20031204115033.GG6808@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mail-Followup-To: ipv6@ietf.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact helpdesk@ecs.soton.ac.uk for more information X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:13:01PM +0200, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration > > An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of DHCP will be > unable to obtain any IPv6 addresses aside from link-local addresses > when it is connected to a link over which it receives a router > advertisement with the 'M' flag (Managed address configuration) set > and which contains no prefixes advertised for Stateless Address > Autoconfiguration (see section 4.5.2). In this situation, the IPv6 > Node will be unable to communicate with other off-link nodes unless a > global or site-local IPv6 address is manually configured. Remove site-local as we're deprecating them? > An IPv6 node that receives a router advertisement with the 'M' flag > set and that contains advertised prefixes will configure interfaces > with both stateless autoconfiguration addresses and addresses > obtained through DHCP. Perhaps cite 5.6 of 2462 here? It hadn't occured to me that both stateless and stateful could be used together. Is this discussed anywhere else other than 5.6 in 2462? > For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes should use DHCP > upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see > section 5.5.3 of RFC2462) for address configuration. In addition, > in the absence of a router, IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST attempt > to use DHCP for address configuration. Hmmm... in 5.5.2 of 2462 it says "If a link has no routers, a host MUST attempt to use stateful autoconfiguration to obtain addresses and other configuration information." so it's not just for address configuration. Perhaps cite 5.5.2 here. M means use DHCP for addresses and other config info, O means just other config info (an odd way for it to be specified, but... :) > 5.3.2 Other Stateful Configuration > > DHCP provides the ability to provide other configuration information > to the node. An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation of > DHCP will be unable to obtain other configuration information such as > the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected to a link over Perhaps say "DNS or NTP" so that we emphasise it's not just about DNS. Do you have a target date to release the next version of the nodes requirements draft? I appreciate it's a lot of work. Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:55:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21231 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:55:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs57-0001T8-T6 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:55:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4BtfW5005644 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:55:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs57-0001Sx-O8 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:55:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21199 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:55:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs53-0006xX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:55:37 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs53-0006xU-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:55:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs4V-0001B8-UP; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs43-000186-SJ for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:54:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21145 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:54:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs3z-0006vu-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:54:31 -0500 Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([152.78.70.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs3y-0006vr-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:54:31 -0500 Received: from pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ns1 [152.78.68.1]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29049 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:54:31 GMT Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (IDENT:root@login [152.78.68.162]) by pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA27959 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:54:28 GMT Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB4BsSP10323 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:54:28 GMT Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:54:28 +0000 From: Tim Chown To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Message-ID: <20031204115428.GH6808@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mail-Followup-To: ipv6@ietf.org References: <20031204113910.GF6808@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact helpdesk@ecs.soton.ac.uk for more information X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Tim Chown wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > > > > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in > > > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It > > > is not clear to which you're referring to here. > > > > Does that matter to the client? > > The sentences start basically like, "If the node implements DHCP, it > MUST/SHOULD do foo". > > Does a stateless DHCP count as implmenting DHCP? Is stateless DHCP > non-compliant with Node Requirements? OK, so the node may implement the full DHCPv6 spec (for address and other info) or stateless DHCPv6 (only for other info). The implementation of how other info is obtained would be the same. So I agree we should say something like "If the node implements stateful address configuration for DHCPv6 then" i.e. put the language in terms of client functionality rather than whether the server is full or ststeless? Tim -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 06:59:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21356 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:59:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs8z-0001ss-88 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:59:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4BxfFB007236 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:59:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs8z-0001sd-2L for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:59:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21311 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:59:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs8u-00071R-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:59:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs8u-00071M-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:59:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs8M-0001bV-5U; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:59:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARs7p-0001az-1U for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:58:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21283 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 06:58:11 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs7k-0006zy-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:58:24 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARs7j-0006zv-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 06:58:23 -0500 Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB4BwOw02943 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:58:24 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:58:22 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:58:21 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:58:20 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6XP0oAoGDROLVRWqAePHWrxmbFQAABzVA To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2003 11:58:21.0748 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA05CF40:01C3BA5D] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tim, > Remove site-local as we're deprecating them? I agree. It was an oversite. > > An IPv6 node that receives a router advertisement with the 'M' = flag > > set and that contains advertised prefixes will configure = interfaces > > with both stateless autoconfiguration addresses and addresses > > obtained through DHCP. >=20 > Perhaps cite 5.6 of 2462 here? It hadn't occured to me that both = stateless > and stateful could be used together. Is this discussed anywhere else > other than 5.6 in 2462? Let me look. > > For those IPv6 nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes should use = DHCP > > upon the receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set = (see > > section 5.5.3 of RFC2462) for address configuration. In = addition,=20 > > in the absence of a router, IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP MUST = attempt=20 > > to use DHCP for address configuration. >=20 > Hmmm... in 5.5.2 of 2462 it says >=20 > "If a link has no routers, a host MUST attempt to use stateful > autoconfiguration to obtain addresses and other configuration > information." >=20 > so it's not just for address configuration. Perhaps cite 5.5.2 here. > M means use DHCP for addresses and other config info, O means just = other > config info (an odd way for it to be specified, but... :) Good catch, I will fix the text. =20 > > 5.3.2 Other Stateful Configuration > >=20 > > DHCP provides the ability to provide other configuration = information > > to the node. An IPv6 node that does not include an implementation = of > > DHCP will be unable to obtain other configuration information = such as > > the addresses of DNS servers when it is connected to a link over >=20 > Perhaps say "DNS or NTP" so that we emphasise it's not just about DNS. Agreed. > Do you have a target date to release the next version of the nodes > requirements draft? I appreciate it's a lot of work. Shortly, as soon as we resolve this. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 07:06:58 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA21589 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:06:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsFp-0002M0-Uq for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:06:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4C6jqL009037 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:06:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsFp-0002Lg-K4 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:06:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA21560 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:06:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsFl-0007A7-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:06:41 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsFk-0007A0-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:06:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsF9-00027r-Jo; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:06:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsEv-000279-E8 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:05:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA21538 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:05:31 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsEq-00078q-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:05:44 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsEp-00078n-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:05:44 -0500 Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB4C5iw16869 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:05:44 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:05:32 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh004.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:05:31 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:05:24 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6XYNwr952qvqISC2YhcHXJ5NteAAATJSQ To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2003 12:05:31.0863 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA642670:01C3BA5E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tim & Pekka, I got this comment from Thomas wrt Stateless DHCP: Does this even need mentioning? I.e, what are the real implications for clients? Do they need to implement full blown dhc (the client part)? Or do they implement some subset? (Hmm... reading the related draft, clients implement a subset... And this document has a normative reference to the other ID, so either this document needs to be more explicit about what stateless DHCPv6 is, or will have to wait on the other document.) We agreed that perhaps discussion of Statless DHCP need not be = mentioned. John > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of ext > Tim Chown > Sent: 04 December, 2003 13:54 > To: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) >=20 >=20 > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Tim Chown wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > >=20 > > > > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the=20 > one specified in=20 > > > > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at=20 > the moment. It=20 > > > > is not clear to which you're referring to here. > > >=20 > > > Does that matter to the client? > >=20 > > The sentences start basically like, "If the node implements=20 > DHCP, it=20 > > MUST/SHOULD do foo". > >=20 > > Does a stateless DHCP count as implmenting DHCP? Is stateless DHCP=20 > > non-compliant with Node Requirements? >=20 > OK, so the node may implement the full DHCPv6 spec (for=20 > address and other=20 > info) or stateless DHCPv6 (only for other info). The=20 > implementation of > how other info is obtained would be the same. =20 >=20 > So I agree we should say something like "If the node=20 > implements stateful > address configuration for DHCPv6 then" >=20 > i.e. put the language in terms of client functionality rather=20 > than whether > the server is full or ststeless? >=20 > Tim >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 07:19:15 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA21928 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:19:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsRe-0003Ct-Vk for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:18:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4CIwoY012321 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:18:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsRe-0003Ce-Rp for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:18:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA21891 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:18:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsRe-0007Pv-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:18:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsRe-0007Ps-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:18:58 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsQj-0002zw-BA; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsQA-0002z7-W8 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:17:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA21856 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:17:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsQA-0007Nr-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:17:26 -0500 Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([152.78.70.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsQ9-0007NZ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:17:25 -0500 Received: from pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ns1 [152.78.68.1]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29853 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:17:14 GMT Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (IDENT:root@login [152.78.68.162]) by pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29754 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:17:11 GMT Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB4CHBU11029 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:17:11 GMT Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:17:11 +0000 From: Tim Chown To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Message-ID: <20031204121711.GL6808@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mail-Followup-To: ipv6@ietf.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact helpdesk@ecs.soton.ac.uk for more information X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I guess it would be good to get Ralph's input here. Clearly clients may implement a subset, and if we consider that for this document we can either a) add references to stateless DHCPv6, but this is not finished so that is not ideal b) use language that emphasises whether the client implements stateful address configuration and/or other configuration options (and for now we assume that these are the two possible subsets of functionality) Running with b) seems safer at this stage - it would add a bit of wordage but avoid the possible hold-up that Thomas hints at? Tim On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 02:05:24PM +0200, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > Tim & Pekka, > > I got this comment from Thomas wrt Stateless DHCP: > > Does this even need mentioning? I.e, what are the real implications > for clients? Do they need to implement full blown dhc (the client > part)? Or do they implement some subset? (Hmm... reading the related > draft, clients implement a subset... And this document has a normative > reference to the other ID, so either this document needs to be more > explicit about what stateless DHCPv6 is, or will have to wait on the > other document.) > > We agreed that perhaps discussion of Statless DHCP need not be mentioned. > > John > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of ext > > Tim Chown > > Sent: 04 December, 2003 13:54 > > To: ipv6@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Tim Chown wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the > > one specified in > > > > > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at > > the moment. It > > > > > is not clear to which you're referring to here. > > > > > > > > Does that matter to the client? > > > > > > The sentences start basically like, "If the node implements > > DHCP, it > > > MUST/SHOULD do foo". > > > > > > Does a stateless DHCP count as implmenting DHCP? Is stateless DHCP > > > non-compliant with Node Requirements? > > > > OK, so the node may implement the full DHCPv6 spec (for > > address and other > > info) or stateless DHCPv6 (only for other info). The > > implementation of > > how other info is obtained would be the same. > > > > So I agree we should say something like "If the node > > implements stateful > > address configuration for DHCPv6 then" > > > > i.e. put the language in terms of client functionality rather > > than whether > > the server is full or ststeless? > > > > Tim > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 07:26:02 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22340 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:26:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsYD-0003ny-AG for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:25:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4CPjET014623 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:25:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsYD-0003nm-4r for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:25:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22294 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:25:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsYC-0007fG-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:25:44 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsYC-0007fC-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:25:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsXX-0003ZA-LH; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:25:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsWs-0003Wa-Ln for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:24:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22194 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:24:08 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsWs-0007bc-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:24:22 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com ([131.228.20.27]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsWr-0007bX-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:24:21 -0500 Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB4COKV08812 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:24:20 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:24:20 +0200 Received: from esebh005.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.86]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:24:19 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh005.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:24:18 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:24:18 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6YMHF34ukEhsAQKOYhzi4sdnlCAAAKAgg To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Dec 2003 12:24:18.0721 (UTC) FILETIME=[8A0D0910:01C3BA61] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tim, > I guess it would be good to get Ralph's input here. >=20 > Clearly clients may implement a subset, and if we consider that for = this > document we can either >=20 > a) add references to stateless DHCPv6, but this is not finished so = that=20 > is not ideal >=20 > b) use language that emphasises whether the client implements stateful > address configuration and/or other configuration options (and for = now > we assume that these are the two possible subsets of functionality) >=20 > Running with b) seems safer at this stage - it would add a bit of = wordage=20 > but avoid the possible hold-up that Thomas hints at? I'd prefer adding an informative reference to stateless DHCPv6, and = mention its relation to 'normal' DHCP. =20 Ralph, any suggested text? John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 07:49:15 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23281 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:49:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsud-0005GE-5b for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:48:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4CmtKH020221 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:48:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARsuc-0005G4-WF for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:48:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23247 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:48:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsuc-0000WK-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:48:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARsub-0000WH-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:48:53 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARstm-00052z-38; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:48:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARstE-00052a-BU for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:47:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA23220 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARstD-0000VN-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:47:27 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARst8-0000UY-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:47:22 -0500 Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB4CkjAt027202; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 04:46:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from rdroms-w2k01.cisco.com (rtp-vpn1-160.cisco.com [10.82.224.160]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AEK40774; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:46:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031204074010.01e21040@flask.cisco.com> X-Sender: rdroms@flask.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:46:42 -0500 To: john.loughney@nokia.com From: Ralph Droms Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Cc: , , narten@us.ibm.com, , In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , I'm just catching up on this thread ... I was off-line (sleeping) and found it in my inbox this AM. I'll follow up in a couple of hours, after I catch up on a couple of pressing day job issues. There is another issue with RFC 2462 that will fall somewhere among clarification/update/revision of the spec in RFC 2462: the text describing the use of the OtherConfigFlag and the O flag in RAs is slanted toward the definition of the protocol for "other configuration information" as a "stateful" protocol (if I remember correctly, the text in question is in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462). There are both technical and editorial issues with that text. I'll follow up a little later this AM. - Ralph At 02:24 PM 12/4/2003 +0200, john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: >Hi Tim, > > > I guess it would be good to get Ralph's input here. > > > > Clearly clients may implement a subset, and if we consider that for this > > document we can either > > > > a) add references to stateless DHCPv6, but this is not finished so that > > is not ideal > > > > b) use language that emphasises whether the client implements stateful > > address configuration and/or other configuration options (and for now > > we assume that these are the two possible subsets of functionality) > > > > Running with b) seems safer at this stage - it would add a bit of wordage > > but avoid the possible hold-up that Thomas hints at? > >I'd prefer adding an informative reference to stateless DHCPv6, and mention >its relation to 'normal' DHCP. > >Ralph, any suggested text? > >John > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 10:04:39 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28586 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:04:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARv1k-0004SP-N7 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:04:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4F4OuP017127 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:04:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARv1k-0004SA-H1 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:04:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28511 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARv1i-0002gC-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:04:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARv1i-0002g9-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:04:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARv0P-0004E3-M0; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARuzP-00043L-TB for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:02:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA28378 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 10:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARuzN-0002e3-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:01:57 -0500 Received: from web80513.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.79.83]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARuzM-0002c2-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:01:56 -0500 Message-ID: <20031204150118.50917.qmail@web80513.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [63.197.18.101] by web80513.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:01:18 PST Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 07:01:18 -0800 (PST) From: Fred Templin Subject: Re: names for non-global addresses To: Bob Hinden , Brian E Carpenter Cc: ipv6@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20031124162718.0368bf00@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-838785968-1070550078=:50849" Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --0-838785968-1070550078=:50849 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Bob/Brian, I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all. An "organization" could be the company I work for, the PTA for my child's school, the International Red Cross, me and my buddy list, etc. etc. The sort of addresses we've been talking about would enable intra-organizational networking whether the members are located within the same "site" or different "sites". So, as a parting comment on this subject thread, I would like to re-iterate the earlier proposal of "Organizational Addresses". Even better would be "Organizational-Scoped Addresses" (no three-letter acronym needed in either case). Fred Templin osprey67@yahoo.com Bob Hinden wrote: At 12:58 AM 11/24/2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >Politically, calling them private addresses will work best, even >if it offends end-to-end purists such as myself. > >I don't think cute geek acronyms work for this. We're looking for >a suitable chapter heading for a dummies' guide book. > > "Configuring private addresses for your network." This could be: Private IPv6 Unicast Addresses (PUA) or perhaps: Globally Unique Private IPv6 Unicast Addresses (GUPA) Bob -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --0-838785968-1070550078=:50849 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Bob/Brian,
 
I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative
of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is
even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of
"Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all.
 
An "organization" could be the company I work for, the PTA
for my child's school, the International Red Cross, me and my
buddy list, etc. etc. The sort of addresses we've been talking
about would enable intra-organizational networking whether the
members are located within the same "site" or different "sites".
 
So, as a parting comment on this subject thread, I would like
to re-iterate the earlier proposal of "Organizational Addresses".
Even better would be "Organizational-Scoped Addresses" (no
three-letter acronym needed in either case).
 
Fred Templin
osprey67@yahoo.com

Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@nokia.com> wrote:
At 12:58 AM 11/24/2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>Politically, calling them private addresses will work best, even
>if it offends end-to-end purists such as myself.
>
>I don't think cute geek acronyms work for this. We're looking for
>a suitable chapter heading for a dummies' guide book.
>
> "Configuring private addresses for your network."

This could be:

Private IPv6 Unicast Addresses (PUA)

or perhaps:

Globally Unique Private IPv6 Unicast Addresses (GUPA)

Bob


--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--0-838785968-1070550078=:50849-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 11:45:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03983 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:45:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARwbI-0001Lm-P6 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:45:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4GjCe7005183 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:45:12 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARwbI-0001LV-0G for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:45:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03943 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:44:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARwbG-0004Uk-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:45:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARwbG-0004Uh-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:45:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARwa9-00018Q-UF; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:44:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARwZF-00017E-PQ for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:43:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03904 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:42:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARwZE-0004Tn-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:43:04 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARwZE-0004Tk-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:43:04 -0500 Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB4GgUAt000945; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 08:42:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from rdroms-w2k01.cisco.com ([161.44.65.206]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AEK59844; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:42:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031204113748.01e0c710@flask.cisco.com> X-Sender: rdroms@flask.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:42:24 -0500 To: Pekka Savola From: Ralph Droms Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, narten@us.ibm.com, , In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - all of the various message exchanges and modes of operation are defined in RFC 3315. draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt is an aid to the implementation of DHCP that provides other configuration information but not address assignment. It might clarify the text a little to refer to "a node that uses DHCP for address assignment" and "a node that uses DHCP to obtain other configuration information"; I think references to "stateless DHCPv6" are confusing. - Ralph At 01:25 PM 12/4/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: >[...] >Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in >RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It >is not clear to which you're referring to here. > >-- >Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the >Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." >Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 13:39:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07750 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:39:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARyNW-0001Yb-81 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:39:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4Id6fs005981 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:39:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARyNW-0001YO-2V for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:39:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07707 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:38:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARyNQ-00067N-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:39:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARyNQ-00067K-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:39:00 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARyKZ-00013M-25; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:36:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARyK9-00011R-JN for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:35:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA07520 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 13:35:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARyK7-000630-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:35:35 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARyK5-00062W-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 13:35:33 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB4IWTY10437; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:32:29 +0200 Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 20:32:29 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Ralph Droms cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, , , Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20031204113748.01e0c710@flask.cisco.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ralph Droms wrote: > No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - all of the various message > exchanges and modes of operation are defined in RFC 3315. > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt is an aid to the implementation of > DHCP that provides other configuration information but not address assignment. Sure, but then a sentence like "if DHCP is implemented" makes a bit sense as some may implement the critical part and some not. It's not a binary yes/no decision. > It might clarify the text a little to refer to "a node that uses DHCP for > address assignment" and "a node that uses DHCP to obtain other configuration > information"; Based on the wording, that might be fine. > I think references to "stateless DHCPv6" are confusing. Maybe, maybe not. A brief reference could maybe be added just to make the folks realize that there is a implementable and "blessed" subset of DHCP.. but the main point is clarity in the body of the description. > At 01:25 PM 12/4/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > >[...] > >Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one specified in > >RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the moment. It > >is not clear to which you're referring to here. > > > >-- > >Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > >Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > >Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > > > > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >ipv6@ietf.org > >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 14:19:14 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09566 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:19:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARz06-0003ne-ND for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:18:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4JIwLx014600 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:18:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARz06-0003nP-G1 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:18:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09528 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:18:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARz03-0006qa-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:18:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARz03-0006qW-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:18:55 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARyzB-0003em-Qz; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:18:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ARyyi-0003e8-Tj for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:17:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA09448 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:17:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARyyg-0006pN-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:17:30 -0500 Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.50]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ARyyf-0006pK-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:17:29 -0500 Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97510AFE3E; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:17:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 18758-02; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:17:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85234AFD28; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:17:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:06:46 -0500 From: Keith Moore To: Fred Templin Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, bob.hinden@nokia.com, brc@zurich.ibm.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: names for non-global addresses Message-Id: <20031204140646.088e4c3d.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: <20031204150118.50917.qmail@web80513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20031124162718.0368bf00@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> <20031204150118.50917.qmail@web80513.mail.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative > of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is > even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of > "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all. that's completely ridiculous. these addresses are not specific to an organization at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 15:54:30 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14140 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:54:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS0UI-00008s-RN for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:54:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4KsEoG000540 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:54:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS0UI-00008d-LZ for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:54:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA14099 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS0UH-0000CC-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:54:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS0UG-0000C9-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:54:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS0T8-0008RM-4j; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:53:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS0SL-0008Pi-A0 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:52:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA13986 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:51:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS0SE-0000AK-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:52:07 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS0SE-00009M-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:52:06 -0500 Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB4KpXw5009379; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:51:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from rdroms-w2k01.cisco.com ([161.44.65.206]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AEK86041; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:51:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031204152351.01f4acb0@flask.cisco.com> X-Sender: rdroms@flask.cisco.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:51:30 -0500 To: john.loughney@nokia.com From: Ralph Droms Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Cc: , , Pekka Savola In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Here are some comments and suggested text for draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt: It would be good to use either DHCP or DHCPv6 (but not both) consistently throughout the doc. 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration The first two paragraphs are sort of redundant relative to the second paragraph in section 4.5.5. I suggest that the union of the information in the two sources be put into section 4.5.5, and the first two paragraphs of 5.3.1 be deleted. I suggest the following text for 5.3.1: Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. In addition, in the absence of a router, those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements. 5.3.2 Other configuration information I suggest changing the title of this section because the development of DHCP has moved toward using a DHCP in a way that is typically known as "stateless". I recognize the potential confusion with RFC 2462, in which "stateful" is pretty deeply embedded. I think the first paragraph of 5.3.2 is redundant and should be merged in with the text in 4.5.5. I suggest the following text for 5.3.2 Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' flag in Router Advertisements. An IPv6 Node can use the subset of DHCP described in [DHCPv6-SL] to obtain other configuration information. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 17:21:51 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20666 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:21:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS1qp-0004MO-SO for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:21:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4MLZMb016754 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:21:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS1qp-0004M9-Co for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:21:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20644 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:21:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS1qn-000327-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:21:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS1qm-000324-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:21:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS1pL-0004Bi-HD; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:20:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS1ou-0004Aj-Mh for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:19:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA20592 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:19:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS1os-00030m-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:19:34 -0500 Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS1or-00030j-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:19:33 -0500 Received: from esunmail ([129.147.156.34]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB4MJVlc028667 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:19:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from xpa-fe2 (esunmail [129.147.156.34]) by edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HPE009RS60IS5@edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM> for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:19:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from sun.com ([129.146.11.190]) by mail.sun.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTPSA id <0HPE000C460DGU@mail.sun.net> for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:19:30 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:19:25 -0800 From: Alain Durand Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt To: Christian Huitema , brc@zurich.ibm.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCFB2ED.9050608@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020920 Netscape/7.0 References: <200311192028.PAA09808@ietf.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. >This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Deprecating Site Local Addresses > Author(s) : C. Huitema, B. Carpenter > Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt > Pages : 11 > Date : 2003-11-19 > I have a last comment on section 4 deprecation. The document says: "The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new implementations" and later on it says: "Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use this prefix." I find those 2 statements a bit confusing. What about new deployments using old implementations? As I have pointed out in the past, the definition of a new vs old implementation is a very fuzy concept, I think that this document should not over specify things here. It would actually be much simpler and less confusing to say only "The special behavior of this prefix SHOULD no longer be supported" and nothing about existing deployments. - Alain. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 4 17:34:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21426 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:34:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS22h-00056s-Aj for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:33:53 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB4MXpVg019636 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:33:51 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS22h-00056d-2B for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:33:51 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21375 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:33:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS22e-0003NX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:33:48 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS22e-0003NU-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:33:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS21t-0004sG-Oq; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AS213-0004qD-D1 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:32:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA21121 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 17:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS20o-0003GG-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:31:54 -0500 Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AS20n-0003G0-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:31:53 -0500 Received: from esunmail ([129.147.156.34]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB4MVrlc003389 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:31:53 -0700 (MST) Received: from xpa-fe2 (esunmail [129.147.156.34]) by edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HPE009UQ6L4S5@edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM> for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:31:53 -0700 (MST) Received: from sun.com ([129.146.11.190]) by mail.sun.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTPSA id <0HPE000IS6L3GU@mail.sun.net> for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 15:31:52 -0700 (MST) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:31:51 -0800 From: Alain Durand Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) To: Christian Huitema Cc: Bob Hinden , Thomas Narten , john.loughney@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org Message-id: <3FCFB5D7.2060806@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020920 Netscape/7.0 References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Catching up with things. I support Christian objection 100%. Protocols may be implemented in the stack but turned on/off by configuration. - Alain. Christian Huitema wrote: >>Also, I think we should revisit this text in the RFC2462bis >>effort. Changing the MUST to MAY in the 5.5.2 paragraph looks like >> >> >the > > >>right change to me, but that's a different email thread. >> >> > >I would agree with that. In any case, I object to tying a MUST condition >to the availability of the code in the implementation. Implementation is >a necessary condition, but so is for example user or admin consent, >maybe battery state, whatever. The text should not speak about >implementation. > >-- Christian Huitema > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 07:46:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03280 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:46:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASFLy-0002nn-RO for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:46:40 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB5CkcCC010767 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:46:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASFLy-0002na-L3 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:46:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03256 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:46:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASFLx-0000YH-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:46:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASFLx-0000YD-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:46:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASFLO-0002iB-IG; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:46:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASFKn-0002hJ-QY for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:45:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA03219 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 07:45:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASFKn-0000XP-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:45:25 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASFKm-0000X8-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:45:24 -0500 Received: from edison.cisco.com (edison.cisco.com [171.70.144.164]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB5CijrX006862; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 04:44:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn4-120.cisco.com [10.21.80.120]) by edison.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id EAA04894; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 04:44:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FD07DBA.3010503@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 04:44:42 -0800 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031121 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alain Durand CC: Christian Huitema , brc@zurich.ibm.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt References: <200311192028.PAA09808@ietf.org> <3FCFB2ED.9050608@sun.com> In-Reply-To: <3FCFB2ED.9050608@sun.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alain Durand wrote: > I have a last comment on section 4 deprecation. > The document says: > "The special behavior of this prefix MUST no longer be supported in new > implementations" > and later on it says: > "Existing implementations and deployments MAY continue to use this prefix." > > I find those 2 statements a bit confusing. What about new deployments > using old implementations? I think the implication is that you're running a risk if you deploy site-locals with old implementations because at some point that code might not be there. > As I have pointed out in the past, the definition of a new vs old > implementation > is a very fuzy concept, I think that this document should not over > specify things here. I think we're doing too much wordsmithing. The whole notion of deprecation is deployment advice. It's the step you take before telling people to remove something from code. > > It would actually be much simpler and less confusing to say only > "The special behavior of this prefix SHOULD no longer be supported" > and nothing about existing deployments. This doesn't work operationally, because people use site-locals today. And as we've debated endlessly we don't do flag days anymore. IMHO this text is good enough to ship. Eliot -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 12:45:58 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15700 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:45:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASK1M-0005RP-AJ for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:45:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB5HjelK020909 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:45:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASK1M-0005RA-1Z for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:45:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15597 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:45:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASK1K-00060W-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:45:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASK1J-00060T-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:45:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASK0l-0005LD-P2; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:45:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASJzw-0005JG-CJ for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:44:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15423 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 12:43:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASJzu-0005uy-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:44:10 -0500 Received: from mail3.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.123]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASJzu-0005uK-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 12:44:10 -0500 Received: from INET-VRS-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.5.27]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:43:40 -0800 Received: from 157.54.6.197 by INET-VRS-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Fri, 05 Dec 2003 09:43:38 -0800 Received: from red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.9.102]) by INET-HUB-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:43:33 -0800 Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.84]) by red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:43:23 -0800 Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.81]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:43:40 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7122.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:43:34 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt thread-index: AcO7LaQwkbiSV8R1QCS+mMNq/SK0LQAKLr5g From: "Christian Huitema" To: "Eliot Lear" , "Alain Durand" Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Dec 2003 17:43:40.0624 (UTC) FILETIME=[51D92500:01C3BB57] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > It would actually be much simpler and less confusing to say only > > "The special behavior of this prefix SHOULD no longer be supported" > > and nothing about existing deployments. >=20 > This doesn't work operationally, because people use site-locals today. > And as we've debated endlessly we don't do flag days anymore. >=20 > IMHO this text is good enough to ship. I understand Alain's point, the possible confusion about what do in service packs and other types of upgrades, but we went round and round and eventually decided to just leave the text as is. We had a very explicit discussion of this topic during the WG meeting in Minneapolis, and the sense of the room was rather close to Eliot's opinion. In fact, I proposed to change the text to Alain's wording, but Brian Carpenter objected that this would cause more confusion, since we really want to say "MUST not use" to prevent further usage, and "SHOULD" does not achieve that. The sense of the room was clearly with Brian. I guess this is one of the cases where the consensus is a bit rough. -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 13:12:38 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17127 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:12:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASKRE-00073z-Fg for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:12:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB5ICOFr027145 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:12:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASKRE-00073k-5j for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:12:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17078 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:12:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASKRC-0006hk-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:12:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASKRB-0006hh-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:12:21 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASKQs-0006zr-Qk; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:12:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASKQ5-0006os-Hg for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:11:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA17041 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 13:10:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASKQ3-0006gS-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:11:11 -0500 Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASKQ2-0006gO-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:11:11 -0500 Received: from esunmail ([129.147.156.34]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB5IB9Ph000130 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:11:09 -0700 (MST) Received: from xpa-fe2 (esunmail [129.147.156.34]) by edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HPF00415P6J5N@edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM> for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:11:09 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([66.93.78.11]) by mail.sun.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTPSA id <0HPF0006BP6C75@mail.sun.net> for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 11:11:01 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 10:14:08 -0800 From: Alain Durand Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt In-reply-to: To: Christian Huitema Cc: ipv6@ietf.org, Eliot Lear , brc@zurich.ibm.com Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT The whole story about deprecating Site Local has led to very complex discussions that a lot of people had difficulties to follow, partly because the issues are complex and partly because of the heat of the debate. As we are coming near to a conclusion to this painful story, I believe we owe implementors and network administrators very clear guidelines on what to do now and confusion in this section of the document is IMHO not acceptable. I think the key is to dissociate in this text what implementors and what network administrator have to do. To the implementors: a) don't implement SL if you are designing a new product b) don't rush removing SL support from your current products, this can be done in future releases. To network administrators: a) don't design new networks using SL b) don't rush redesigning your existing network using SL however, don't expect them to work in the future as new implementations will not support SL. If we explain it this way, maybe we can get rid of the MUST/SHOULD keywords in this section as anyway they are inappropriate as the IETF cannot tell nor enforce what implementors or network administrators do or don't. - Alain. On Dec 5, 2003, at 9:43 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: > >>> It would actually be much simpler and less confusing to say only >>> "The special behavior of this prefix SHOULD no longer be supported" >>> and nothing about existing deployments. >> >> This doesn't work operationally, because people use site-locals today. >> And as we've debated endlessly we don't do flag days anymore. >> >> IMHO this text is good enough to ship. > > I understand Alain's point, the possible confusion about what do in > service packs and other types of upgrades, but we went round and round > and eventually decided to just leave the text as is. > > We had a very explicit discussion of this topic during the WG meeting > in > Minneapolis, and the sense of the room was rather close to Eliot's > opinion. In fact, I proposed to change the text to Alain's wording, but > Brian Carpenter objected that this would cause more confusion, since we > really want to say "MUST not use" to prevent further usage, and > "SHOULD" > does not achieve that. The sense of the room was clearly with Brian. I > guess this is one of the cases where the consensus is a bit rough. > > -- Christian Huitema -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 15:55:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26314 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:55:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASMye-00054T-KY for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:55:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB5Kt45N019481 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:55:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASMya-00053a-0K for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:55:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26264 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:54:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASMyY-0002M7-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:54:58 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASMyX-0002M4-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:54:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASMxe-0004xL-Fa; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:54:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASMwz-0004wm-UA for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:53:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA26120 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:53:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASMwy-0002Ic-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:53:20 -0500 Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.50]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASMwx-0002IT-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:53:20 -0500 Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E612AFD89; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:53:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31806-12; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:53:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D71CAFC69; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:53:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 15:42:23 -0500 From: Keith Moore To: Alain Durand Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, huitema@windows.microsoft.com, ipv6@ietf.org, lear@cisco.com, brc@zurich.ibm.com Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt Message-Id: <20031205154223.7808e0ca.moore@cs.utk.edu> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386--netbsdelf) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > To the implementors: > a) don't implement SL if you are designing a new product > b) don't rush removing SL support from your current products, this can > be done in future releases. to application implementors: a) avoid using SL addresses in applications that exchange addresses b) don't special-case handling of SL addresses in other kinds of apps > To network administrators: > a) don't design new networks using SL > b) don't rush redesigning your existing network using SL > however, don't expect them to work in the future as new > implementations will not support SL. c) don't expect future apps to work with SL to IETF and other standards organizations: a) don't utilize SL in any future standards -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 5 18:16:58 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02643 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:16:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASPBj-0002af-5y for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:16:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB5NGhI2009953 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:16:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASPBi-0002aS-Vc for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:16:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02582 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:16:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASPBg-0004CW-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:16:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASPBf-0004CT-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:16:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASPB5-0002UF-T3; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:16:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASPAv-0002TM-Vz for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:15:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA02464 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 18:15:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASPAs-0004BC-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:15:50 -0500 Received: from brmea-mail-1.sun.com ([192.18.98.31]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASPAs-0004B9-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 18:15:50 -0500 Received: from esunmail ([129.147.156.34]) by brmea-mail-1.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB5NFolc029403 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 16:15:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from xpa-fe2 (esunmail [129.147.156.34]) by edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HPG00GAA3ADUJ@edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM> for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:15:50 -0700 (MST) Received: from sun.com ([129.146.11.190]) by mail.sun.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTPSA id <0HPG000SV3AC7C@mail.sun.net> for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:15:49 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 15:15:48 -0800 From: Alain Durand Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt To: Keith Moore Cc: huitema@windows.microsoft.com, ipv6@ietf.org, lear@cisco.com, brc@zurich.ibm.com Message-id: <3FD111A4.5050405@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020920 Netscape/7.0 References: <20031205154223.7808e0ca.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Those are very good to mention as well. - Alain. Keith Moore wrote: >>To the implementors: >>a) don't implement SL if you are designing a new product >>b) don't rush removing SL support from your current products, this can >> be done in future releases. >> >> > >to application implementors: > >a) avoid using SL addresses in applications that exchange addresses >b) don't special-case handling of SL addresses in other kinds of apps > > > >>To network administrators: >>a) don't design new networks using SL >>b) don't rush redesigning your existing network using SL >> however, don't expect them to work in the future as new >>implementations will not support SL. >> >> > >c) don't expect future apps to work with SL > >to IETF and other standards organizations: > >a) don't utilize SL in any future standards > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 06:41:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06252 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:41:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASaoW-0006ZJ-Oc for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:41:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6BfWvU025245 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:41:32 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASaoW-0006Z6-J3 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:41:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06216 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASaoS-0006hn-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:41:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASaoS-0006hk-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:41:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASao2-0006TW-VY; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:41:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASanI-0006Sl-F1 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:40:16 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06193 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:39:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASanE-0006hC-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:40:12 -0500 Received: from zmamail04.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.104]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASanD-0006h9-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:40:11 -0500 Received: from tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.103]) by zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 566AF7EDE; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:40:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:40:12 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:40:11 -0500 Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B05122BAB@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6XYNwr952qvqISC2YhcHXJ5NteAAATJSQAGOxRmA= From: "Bound, Jim" To: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2003 11:40:12.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5542620:01C3BBED] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Stateless DHCPv6 is a proper subset of DHCPv6 3315. Just say DHCPv6. This is exact example of the silliness we do on mail lists taking up peoples time. Thomas Narten is correct and giving good AD advice to John. Chairs overruled. Lets move on. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of john.loughney@nokia.com > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 7:05 AM > To: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) >=20 >=20 > Tim & Pekka, >=20 > I got this comment from Thomas wrt Stateless DHCP: >=20 > Does this even need mentioning? I.e, what are the real implications > for clients? Do they need to implement full blown dhc (the client > part)? Or do they implement some subset? (Hmm... reading the related > draft, clients implement a subset... And this document has a=20 > normative > reference to the other ID, so either this document needs to be more > explicit about what stateless DHCPv6 is, or will have to wait on the > other document.) >=20 > We agreed that perhaps discussion of Statless DHCP need not=20 > be mentioned. >=20 > John >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org]On=20 > Behalf Of ext > > Tim Chown > > Sent: 04 December, 2003 13:54 > > To: ipv6@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) > >=20 > >=20 > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Tim Chown wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:25:35PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > > >=20 > > > > > Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the=20 > > one specified in=20 > > > > > RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at=20 > > the moment. It=20 > > > > > is not clear to which you're referring to here. > > > >=20 > > > > Does that matter to the client? > > >=20 > > > The sentences start basically like, "If the node implements=20 > > DHCP, it=20 > > > MUST/SHOULD do foo". > > >=20 > > > Does a stateless DHCP count as implmenting DHCP? Is=20 > stateless DHCP=20 > > > non-compliant with Node Requirements? > >=20 > > OK, so the node may implement the full DHCPv6 spec (for=20 > > address and other=20 > > info) or stateless DHCPv6 (only for other info). The=20 > > implementation of > > how other info is obtained would be the same. =20 > >=20 > > So I agree we should say something like "If the node=20 > > implements stateful > > address configuration for DHCPv6 then" > >=20 > > i.e. put the language in terms of client functionality rather=20 > > than whether > > the server is full or ststeless? > >=20 > > Tim > >=20 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 06:46:28 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06384 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:46:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASasw-0006yF-89 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:46:14 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6Bk6bH026796 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:46:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASasv-0006y7-Re for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:46:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06343 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:45:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASasr-0006km-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:46:01 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASasr-0006kj-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:46:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASast-0006pX-AS; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:46:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASas0-0006o4-6I for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:45:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06327 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:44:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASarw-0006kR-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:45:04 -0500 Received: from zmamail04.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.104]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASarv-0006kO-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:45:03 -0500 Received: from tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.103]) by zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B354CA073; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:45:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:45:04 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:45:04 -0500 Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B047CA311@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6ligklNDc46/nQ1e99sp6bJZ5pwBV72qQ From: "Bound, Jim" To: "Pekka Savola" , "Ralph Droms" Cc: , , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2003 11:45:04.0602 (UTC) FILETIME=[63B67BA0:01C3BBEE] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Pekka, Have you read both specs? Both Ralph and I have told you it's a total proper subset. We are the TECHNICAL experts and both are working implementations hands on of both specs, the AD has stated a good opinion too. You now are using up our time with your opinion and have been told by many now its not a problem. Your using up precious mail time here on this list and would you now please clarify when your speaking as Chair and when as "individual" so we can get an idea what portion of your mail is breaking the defacto rule of 15 mail messages a week. You have lost this debate please accept it and move on I am sure John can get text from all said can we please move on to next topic. Thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Pekka Savola > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:32 PM > To: Ralph Droms > Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com; narten@us.ibm.com;=20 > Bob.Hinden@nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)=20 >=20 >=20 > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ralph Droms wrote: > > No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - all of=20 > the various message > > exchanges and modes of operation are defined in RFC 3315. > > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt is an aid to the=20 > implementation of > > DHCP that provides other configuration information but not=20 > address assignment. >=20 > Sure, but then a sentence like "if DHCP is implemented" makes a bit=20 > sense as some may implement the critical part and some not. It's not=20 > a binary yes/no decision. >=20 > > It might clarify the text a little to refer to "a node that=20 > uses DHCP for > > address assignment" and "a node that uses DHCP to obtain=20 > other configuration > > information";=20 >=20 > Based on the wording, that might be fine. >=20 > > I think references to "stateless DHCPv6" are confusing. >=20 > Maybe, maybe not. A brief reference could maybe be added=20 > just to make=20 > the folks realize that there is a implementable and "blessed" subset=20 > of DHCP.. but the main point is clarity in the body of the=20 > description. >=20 >=20 > > At 01:25 PM 12/4/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > >[...] > > >Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one=20 > specified in > > >RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the=20 > moment. It > > >is not clear to which you're referring to here. > > > > > >-- > > >Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves=20 > king, yet the > > >Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > > >Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A=20 > Clash of Kings > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > >ipv6@ietf.org > > >Administrative Requests:=20 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >=20 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >=20 > >=20 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 06:59:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06617 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:59:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASb5X-0007LO-4z for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:59:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6Bx7WK028224 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:59:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASb5W-0007L9-V5 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:59:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06591 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:58:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASb5S-0006sL-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:59:02 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASb5S-0006sI-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:59:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASb5S-0007HX-7c; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:59:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASb4T-0007HD-Pb for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:58:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06580 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:57:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASb4P-0006s8-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:57 -0500 Received: from zmamail03.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASb4O-0006s4-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 06:57:56 -0500 Received: from tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.96]) by zmamail03.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E2A71113F; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:57:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:57:57 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:57:57 -0500 Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B05122BAD@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6ligklNDc46/nQ1e99sp6bJZ5pwBV72qQAACJFwA= From: "Bound, Jim" To: "Bound, Jim" , "Pekka Savola" , "Ralph Droms" Cc: , , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2003 11:57:57.0955 (UTC) FILETIME=[30AAC930:01C3BBF0] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Your not chair here my mistake. So you are breaking the defacto rule and methodology. Do you think your more special than the rest of us or something, smarter, wiser, etc? /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Bound, Jim > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 6:45 AM > To: Pekka Savola; Ralph Droms > Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com; narten@us.ibm.com;=20 > Bob.Hinden@nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)=20 >=20 >=20 > Pekka, >=20 > Have you read both specs? Both Ralph and I have told you it's a total > proper subset. We are the TECHNICAL experts and both are working > implementations hands on of both specs, the AD has stated a=20 > good opinion > too. You now are using up our time with your opinion and=20 > have been told > by many now its not a problem. Your using up precious mail=20 > time here on > this list and would you now please clarify when your speaking as Chair > and when as "individual" so we can get an idea what portion=20 > of your mail > is breaking the defacto rule of 15 mail messages a week. You=20 > have lost > this debate please accept it and move on I am sure John can get text > from all said can we please move on to next topic. >=20 > Thanks > /jim >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On=20 > > Behalf Of Pekka Savola > > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:32 PM > > To: Ralph Droms > > Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com; narten@us.ibm.com;=20 > > Bob.Hinden@nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ralph Droms wrote: > > > No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - all of=20 > > the various message > > > exchanges and modes of operation are defined in RFC 3315. > > > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt is an aid to the=20 > > implementation of > > > DHCP that provides other configuration information but not=20 > > address assignment. > >=20 > > Sure, but then a sentence like "if DHCP is implemented" makes a bit=20 > > sense as some may implement the critical part and some not.=20 > It's not=20 > > a binary yes/no decision. > >=20 > > > It might clarify the text a little to refer to "a node that=20 > > uses DHCP for > > > address assignment" and "a node that uses DHCP to obtain=20 > > other configuration > > > information";=20 > >=20 > > Based on the wording, that might be fine. > >=20 > > > I think references to "stateless DHCPv6" are confusing. > >=20 > > Maybe, maybe not. A brief reference could maybe be added=20 > > just to make=20 > > the folks realize that there is a implementable and=20 > "blessed" subset=20 > > of DHCP.. but the main point is clarity in the body of the=20 > > description. > >=20 > >=20 > > > At 01:25 PM 12/4/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > > > >[...] > > > >Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one=20 > > specified in > > > >RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the=20 > > moment. It > > > >is not clear to which you're referring to here. > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves=20 > > king, yet the > > > >Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > > > >Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A=20 > > Clash of Kings > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >=20 > >=20 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > > >ipv6@ietf.org > > > >Administrative Requests:=20 > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > >=20 > >=20 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >=20 > > >=20 > > >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > > ipv6@ietf.org > > > Administrative Requests:=20 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >=20 > >=20 > > --=20 > > Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the > > Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." > > Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings > >=20 > >=20 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 09:47:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09089 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:47:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASdiS-0003Cy-Qj for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:47:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6ElS7F012328 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:47:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASdiS-0003Cl-Gv for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:47:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09067 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:47:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASdiQ-0000tS-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:47:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASdiQ-0000tO-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:47:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASdi1-00037S-Ts; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASdhR-00033z-O8 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:46:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09051 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:46:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASdhP-0000qk-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:46:23 -0500 Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.152]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASdhP-0000q0-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:46:23 -0500 Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196] (may be forged)) by mtagate3.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB6Ejon0099528; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:45:50 GMT Received: from collon.zurich.ibm.com (collon.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.143]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id hB6Ejnd9155342; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:45:49 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.145.142.150]) by collon.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25630; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:45:46 +0100 Message-ID: <3FD1EB66.14F9157C@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:44:54 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Moore CC: Fred Templin , bob.hinden@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: names for non-global addresses References: <4.3.2.7.2.20031124162718.0368bf00@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> <20031204150118.50917.qmail@web80513.mail.yahoo.com> <20031204140646.088e4c3d.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Moore wrote: > > > I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative > > of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is > > even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of > > "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all. > > that's completely ridiculous. these addresses are not specific to an > organization at all. Then to what are they specific? Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 09:53:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09240 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:53:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASdnt-0003a1-Ce for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:53:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6Er5F4013755 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:53:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASdnt-0003Zc-1r for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:53:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09190 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:52:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASdnr-00010k-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:53:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASdnq-00010h-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:53:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASdnq-0003Sz-9u; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:53:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASdnf-0003Sb-OC for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:52:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09183 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 09:52:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASdnd-00010R-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:52:49 -0500 Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.150]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASdnc-0000zr-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 09:52:49 -0500 Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196] (may be forged)) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB6Eq7RJ103116; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:52:07 GMT Received: from collon.zurich.ibm.com (collon.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.143]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id hB6Eq6d9273354; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:52:06 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.145.142.150]) by collon.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA25656; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 15:52:03 +0100 Message-ID: <3FD1ECDF.DB463A3F@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:51:11 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Moore CC: Alain Durand , huitema@windows.microsoft.com, ipv6@ietf.org, lear@cisco.com Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt References: <20031205154223.7808e0ca.moore@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Keith Moore wrote: > > > To the implementors: > > a) don't implement SL if you are designing a new product > > b) don't rush removing SL support from your current products, this can > > be done in future releases. > > to application implementors: > > a) avoid using SL addresses in applications that exchange addresses > b) don't special-case handling of SL addresses in other kinds of apps > > > To network administrators: > > a) don't design new networks using SL > > b) don't rush redesigning your existing network using SL > > however, don't expect them to work in the future as new > > implementations will not support SL. > > c) don't expect future apps to work with SL > > to IETF and other standards organizations: > > a) don't utilize SL in any future standards I certainly agree with all those do's and don'ts and have no problem with adding them as informative text. But we are writing a normative document here, to update existing normative documents, so is there really a problem with using normative words? Which software release counts as "new" is indeed not a question for the IETF, and each implementer will have to make his/her own judgement about exactly when to remove the feature. But I don't think it's wrong to say that they MUST remove it. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 11:26:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12751 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:26:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfGE-0005vD-F6 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:26:28 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6GQQQD022764 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:26:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfGE-0005v5-3l for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:26:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12727 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:26:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfGD-0002wk-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:26:25 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfGC-0002wh-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:26:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfFr-0005pb-10; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:26:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfFg-0005p7-4S for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:25:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12723 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:25:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfFf-0002wd-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:25:51 -0500 Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.50]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfFe-0002wa-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:25:50 -0500 Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1B7AFD49; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:25:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30886-07; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE0CDAFB33; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:25:37 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3FD1EB66.14F9157C@zurich.ibm.com> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20031124162718.0368bf00@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> <20031204150118.50917.qmail@web80513.mail.yahoo.com> <20031204140646.088e4c3d.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3FD1EB66.14F9157C@zurich.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Keith Moore , Fred Templin , bob.hinden@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org From: Keith Moore Subject: Re: names for non-global addresses Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:26:09 -0500 To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative >>> of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is >>> even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of >>> "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all. >> >> that's completely ridiculous. these addresses are not specific to an >> organization at all. > > Then to what are they specific? I don't think they're inherently specific to anything. They're simply addresses that cannot be routed globally. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 12:00:46 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13495 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:00:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfn6-0006y8-Fx for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:00:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6H0OIG026782 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:00:24 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfn6-0006xt-76 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:00:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13471 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:00:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfn5-0003c5-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:00:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfn4-0003c2-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:00:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfmp-0006sT-GR; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:00:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfls-0006rX-46 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:59:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA13442 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:58:52 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASflq-0003ay-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:59:06 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASflq-0003au-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:59:06 -0500 Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB6Gx5V13992 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:59:05 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:59:04 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:59:04 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: names for non-global addresses Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 18:59:03 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: names for non-global addresses Thread-Index: AcO8FdWullJDUk+9TKmkGK+6NV6nqAABCxaQ To: , Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Dec 2003 16:59:04.0971 (UTC) FILETIME=[4172A5B0:01C3BC1A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > I don't think they're inherently specific to anything. They're simply = > addresses that cannot be routed globally. Then lets just call them NGRA - Not Globally Routed Addresses. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 12:05:25 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13675 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:05:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfrd-0007hY-7a for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6H55kQ029598 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:05:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfrc-0007gO-Re for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13625 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:04:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfrb-0003jq-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfrb-0003jn-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfrb-0007Yu-En; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:05:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASfr6-0007YC-JB for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:04:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13619 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:04:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfr5-0003j7-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:04:31 -0500 Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.50]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASfr4-0003j4-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 12:04:30 -0500 Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B378AFBAF; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:04:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01274-13; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:04:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A36AFB33; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:04:18 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3FD1ECDF.DB463A3F@zurich.ibm.com> References: <20031205154223.7808e0ca.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3FD1ECDF.DB463A3F@zurich.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <4D52E150-280E-11D8-97F7-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Keith Moore , Alain Durand , huitema@windows.microsoft.com, ipv6@ietf.org, lear@cisco.com From: Keith Moore Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 12:04:49 -0500 To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Keith Moore wrote: >> >>> To the implementors: >>> a) don't implement SL if you are designing a new product >>> b) don't rush removing SL support from your current products, this >>> can >>> be done in future releases. >> >> to application implementors: >> >> a) avoid using SL addresses in applications that exchange addresses >> b) don't special-case handling of SL addresses in other kinds of apps >> >>> To network administrators: >>> a) don't design new networks using SL >>> b) don't rush redesigning your existing network using SL >>> however, don't expect them to work in the future as new >>> implementations will not support SL. >> >> c) don't expect future apps to work with SL >> >> to IETF and other standards organizations: >> >> a) don't utilize SL in any future standards > > I certainly agree with all those do's and don'ts and have no problem > with adding them as informative text. But we are writing a normative > document here, to update existing normative documents, so is there > really > a problem with using normative words? It's often seemed to me like a significant part - probably the most significant part - of what it means to "deprecate" SL consists of things which are probably better stated in non-normative language, because the normative language is both too inflexible and too divisive. If section 4 were to start with a non-normative explanation of what it means to deprecate SL, and then supply normative language for those parts where it makes sense, I think the picture would be clearer. > Which software release counts as "new" is indeed not a question for > the IETF, and each implementer will have to make his/her own judgement > about exactly when to remove the feature. But I don't think it's wrong > to > say that they MUST remove it. Well, it does beg the question of how to say whether a particular implementation is in conformance. Many people feel that a MUST requirement should be testable, but a MUST requirement that exists at some undefined time in the future is not testable. Personally I don't have a problem with this document saying MUST (provided the non-normative text is also there), but I think the text that says that future revisions of other specs will not support SL might be more important. Keith -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 6 14:36:01 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17352 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:36:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASiDP-0004Db-G7 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:35:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB6JZh2C016209 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:35:43 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASiDP-0004DM-91 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:35:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17328 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:35:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASiDM-0005it-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:35:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASiDM-0005iq-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:35:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASiCl-00043Q-Fd; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:35:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASiCf-00042s-HW for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:34:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA17294 for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:34:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASiCc-0005iP-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:34:54 -0500 Received: from smtp-out1.oct.nac.net ([209.123.233.211]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASiCc-0005iM-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 14:34:54 -0500 Received: (qmail 89557 invoked by uid 1000); 6 Dec 2003 14:34:54 -0500 Received: from gmgross@nac.net by smtp-out1.oct by uid 1002 with NIZZACK qmail-scanner-1.20rc3 (uvscan: v4.2.40/v4291. sophie: 2.14/3.73. f-prot: 4.1.1/3.13.4. Clear:RC:1:. Processed in 0.048133 secs); 06 Dec 2003 19:34:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail1.oct.nac.net) (209.123.233.241) by smtp-out1.oct.nac.net with SMTP; 6 Dec 2003 14:34:53 -0500 Received: (qmail 31945 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2003 14:34:53 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO nsx.garage) (gmgross@64.21.175.111) by mail1.oct.nac.net with SMTP; 6 Dec 2003 14:34:53 -0500 Received: (from gmg@localhost) by nsx.garage (8.11.2/8.11.2) id hB6ILde27630; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0500 (EST) From: George Gross To: Brian E Carpenter cc: Subject: Re: names for non-global addresses In-Reply-To: <3FD1EB66.14F9157C@zurich.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, how about "private scope addresses"? or when all else fails, draw the name out of a hat one word at a time ;o) br, George On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: > > > > > I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative > > > of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is > > > even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of > > > "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all. > > > > that's completely ridiculous. these addresses are not specific to an > > organization at all. > > Then to what are they specific? > > Brian > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 00:02:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01291 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:02:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASr3y-0002Cx-9L for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:02:34 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB752Ylb008486 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:02:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASr3y-0002Cn-4y for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:02:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01268 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:02:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASr3v-00047M-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:02:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASr3v-00047J-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:02:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASr3R-00027T-LC; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASr2X-00021p-CU for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:01:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA01231 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:00:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASr2V-00044V-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:01:03 -0500 Received: from dsl092-066-068.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.66.68] helo=cyteen.hactrn.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASr2U-00042L-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:01:02 -0500 Received: from hactrn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cyteen.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C7737 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 00:00:30 -0500 (EST) To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Weekly posting summary for ipv6@ietf.org From: Rob Austein Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 00:00:30 -0500 Message-Id: <20031207050030.46C7737@cyteen.hactrn.net> Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.67% | 8 | 16.71% | 38733 | john.loughney@nokia.com 10.42% | 5 | 8.16% | 18926 | pekkas@netcore.fi 8.33% | 4 | 8.60% | 19927 | tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk 8.33% | 4 | 8.20% | 18997 | alain.durand@sun.com 8.33% | 4 | 7.47% | 17319 | moore@cs.utk.edu 6.25% | 3 | 9.34% | 21646 | jim.bound@hp.com 6.25% | 3 | 6.24% | 14471 | rdroms@cisco.com 4.17% | 2 | 4.57% | 10601 | internet-drafts@ietf.org 4.17% | 2 | 4.56% | 10578 | shawn.routhier@windriver.com 4.17% | 2 | 3.63% | 8415 | brc@zurich.ibm.com 2.08% | 1 | 2.93% | 6792 | osprey67@yahoo.com 2.08% | 1 | 2.35% | 5440 | sra+ipng@hactrn.net 2.08% | 1 | 2.19% | 5070 | pthubert@cisco.com 2.08% | 1 | 2.09% | 4851 | huitema@windows.microsoft.com 2.08% | 1 | 1.97% | 4574 | brian@innovationslab.net 2.08% | 1 | 1.92% | 4451 | lear@cisco.com 2.08% | 1 | 1.90% | 4399 | hardaker@tislabs.com 2.08% | 1 | 1.81% | 4198 | alh-ietf@tndh.net 2.08% | 1 | 1.79% | 4150 | j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de 2.08% | 1 | 1.79% | 4140 | gmgross@nac.net 2.08% | 1 | 1.78% | 4128 | jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 48 |100.00% | 231806 | Total Grunchweather Associates provides this automatic summary on an at-whim basis at the request of the IPv6 WG chairs. Your mileage may vary. We decline responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. If this script produces broken output, you get to keep both pieces. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 05:18:47 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19434 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:18:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASvzi-0007Pl-8h for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:18:32 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB7AIU1N028497 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:18:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASvzi-0007PY-2o for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:18:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19391 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:18:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASvze-0006zU-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:18:26 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASvze-0006zR-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:18:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASvzG-0007Ji-HE; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:18:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ASvyT-0007GQ-6S for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:17:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA19303 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 05:16:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASvyP-0006wH-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:17:09 -0500 Received: from natsmtp00.rzone.de ([81.169.145.165] helo=natsmtp00.webmailer.de) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ASvyP-0006w1-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 05:17:09 -0500 Received: from th-ux.office (pD9E4AAFD.dip.t-dialin.net [217.228.170.253]) by post.webmailer.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB7AH8Kc025877; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:17:09 +0100 (MET) From: Thomas Bohnert Reply-To: both@bothom.de Organization: BNCS To: George Gross , Brian E Carpenter Subject: Re: names for non-global addresses Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:17:16 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 Cc: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200312071117.16612.both@bothom.de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, my proposal: Range Restricted Addresses RRAs. Thomas Am Samstag, 6. Dezember 2003 19:21 schrieb George Gross: > Hi, > how about "private scope addresses"? or when all else fails, draw > the name out of a hat one word at a time ;o) > > br, > George > > On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > Keith Moore wrote: > > > > I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative > > > > of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is > > > > even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of > > > > "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all. > > > > > > that's completely ridiculous. these addresses are not specific to an > > > organization at all. > > > > Then to what are they specific? > > > > Brian > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 7 19:35:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08876 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:35:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT9NI-0006Gs-DB for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:35:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB80Zif6024103 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:35:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT9NI-0006Gg-6z for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:35:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08855 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:35:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT9NG-0002Bp-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:35:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT9NG-0002Bk-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:35:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT9Md-0006AV-Jw; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:35:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AT9MU-00069z-DL for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA08849 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:34:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT9MS-0002An-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:52 -0500 Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([152.78.70.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AT9MS-0002Ak-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 07 Dec 2003 19:34:52 -0500 Received: from pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ns1 [152.78.68.1]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA28899 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:34:51 GMT Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (IDENT:root@login [152.78.68.162]) by pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA05889 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:34:25 GMT Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB80YPQ22716 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:34:25 GMT Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 00:34:25 +0000 From: Tim Chown To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Message-ID: <20031208003425.GI22098@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mail-Followup-To: ipv6@ietf.org References: <4.3.2.7.2.20031204152351.01f4acb0@flask.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20031204152351.01f4acb0@flask.cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact helpdesk@ecs.soton.ac.uk for more information X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ralph, This simplification and use of language looks good. As an aside: There is a minor discrepancy in text between 2461 and 2462 that could perhaps be clarified in the -bis work for those texts. This is regarding the M flag referring to addresses and other options, or just addresses. Three parts of the texts have different nuances: a) 2461 section 4.2 says M flag means hosts use the stateful protocol for address assigment, and O flag means hosts used the stateful protocol for other (non-address) information. b) Then in 2462 it says in Section 4 (p.9) and Section 5.2 (p.11) again that a "managed address configuration" flag indicates whether hosts should use stateful autoconfiguration to obtain addresses and an "other stateful configuration" flag indicates whether hosts should use stateful autoconfiguration to obtain additional information (excluding addresses). c) But then in 5.5.3 of 2462 the RA processing text states what I expect most (all?) implementations actually do: "If the value of ManagedFlag changes from FALSE to TRUE ... the host should invoke the stateful address autoconfiguration protocol, requesting both address information and other information." (i.e. for both information) So the question is should the wording of (a) and (b) be changed to reflect the processing text of (c)? On their own, (a) and (b) suggest that to get the behaviour of (c) *both* the M and O bits should be set, but (c) states that only the M bit need be set for full stateful autoconfiguration. Tim On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:51:30PM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote: > Here are some comments and suggested text for > draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt: > > > It would be good to use either DHCP or DHCPv6 (but not both) consistently > throughout the doc. > > > 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration > > The first two paragraphs are sort of redundant relative to the second > paragraph in section 4.5.5. I suggest that the union of the information in > the two sources be put into section 4.5.5, and the first two paragraphs of > 5.3.1 be deleted. > > I suggest the following text for 5.3.1: > > Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment initiate DHCP > to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon > receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as > described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. In addition, in the > absence of a router, those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address > assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other > configuration information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC > 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for address assignment > can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements. > > > 5.3.2 Other configuration information > > I suggest changing the title of this section because the development of > DHCP has moved toward using a DHCP in a way that is typically known as > "stateless". I recognize the potential confusion with RFC 2462, in which > "stateful" is pretty deeply embedded. > > I think the first paragraph of 5.3.2 is redundant and should be merged in > with the text in 4.5.5. > > I suggest the following text for 5.3.2 > > Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration > information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon > receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as > described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do > not use DHCP for other configuration information can ignore the 'O' > flag in Router Advertisements. > > An IPv6 Node can use the subset of DHCP described in [DHCPv6-SL] > to obtain other configuration information. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 04:43:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02811 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 04:43:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATHvZ-0006gn-CG for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:43:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB89hf4x025690 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 04:43:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATHvU-0006g7-Ee for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:43:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02748 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 04:43:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATHvR-0007iP-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:43:33 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATHvQ-0007iM-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:43:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATHuV-0006Xr-IJ; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:42:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATHtV-0006Wl-Kl for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:41:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02650 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 04:41:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATHtI-0007fV-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:41:20 -0500 Received: from batch12.uni-muenster.de ([128.176.188.110]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATHtH-0007fS-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 04:41:20 -0500 Received: from zivlnx01.uni-muenster.de (ZIVLNX01.UNI-MUENSTER.DE [128.176.188.24]) by batch12.uni-muenster.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 215A01066 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:41:15 +0100 (MEZ) Received: from localhost (localhost.uni-muenster.de [127.0.0.1]) by zivlnx01.uni-muenster.de (Postfix with Virus Detection) with ESMTP id EA326312E9 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:41:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from kummerog.uni-muenster.de (KUMMEROG.UNI-MUENSTER.DE [128.176.184.156]) by zivlnx01.uni-muenster.de (Postfix with Virus Detection) with ESMTP id 34236312E7 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:41:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) From: "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" To: ipv6@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031208003425.GI22098@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20031204152351.01f4acb0@flask.cisco.com> <20031208003425.GI22098@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: JOIN-Team, WWU-Muenster Message-Id: <1070876475.17556.32.camel@kummerog.uni-muenster.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:41:16 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS 0.3.12pre7 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Tim, hi Ralph, I also completely agree with Ralphs wording. Tim: regarding the issue you address: > So the question is should the wording of (a) and (b) be changed to reflect > the processing text of (c)? On their own, (a) and (b) suggest that to get > the behaviour of (c) *both* the M and O bits should be set, but (c) states > that only the M bit need be set for full stateful autoconfiguration. In my eyes, (a) and (b) should be reworked to reflect the behaviour described in (c). If the M flag is set, deciding which additional information is to be sent or if it is sent at all is a matter of the DHCPv6 server's configuration. Christian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 06:32:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06025 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 06:32:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATJcv-0001kj-Td for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:32:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8BWXmQ006735 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 06:32:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATJcv-0001kY-LG for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:32:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05998 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 06:32:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATJcr-0001Tb-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:32:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATJcr-0001TX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:32:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATJcP-0001f0-K7; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:32:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATJbd-0001dD-Np for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:31:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05943 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 06:30:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATJbZ-0001R6-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:31:09 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATJbZ-0001QV-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:31:09 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (171.71.177.237) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Dec 2003 03:32:23 +0000 Received: from edison.cisco.com (edison.cisco.com [171.70.144.164]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB8BUbAt029897; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 03:30:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-184.cisco.com [10.21.64.184]) by edison.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id DAA19821; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 03:30:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FD460DD.5080000@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 03:30:37 -0800 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031121 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alain Durand CC: Christian Huitema , ipv6@ietf.org, brc@zurich.ibm.com Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alain, Your proposal below is fine. Brian, what do you think? Eliot Alain Durand wrote: > The whole story about deprecating Site Local has led to very complex > discussions > that a lot of people had difficulties to follow, partly because the > issues are complex > and partly because of the heat of the debate. > As we are coming near to a conclusion to this painful story, I believe > we owe > implementors and network administrators very clear guidelines on what to > do now > and confusion in this section of the document is IMHO not acceptable. > > I think the key is to dissociate in this text what implementors and what > network administrator > have to do. > > To the implementors: > a) don't implement SL if you are designing a new product > b) don't rush removing SL support from your current products, this can > be done in future releases. > > To network administrators: > a) don't design new networks using SL > b) don't rush redesigning your existing network using SL > however, don't expect them to work in the future as new > implementations will not support SL. > > If we explain it this way, maybe we can get rid of the MUST/SHOULD > keywords in this section > as anyway they are inappropriate as the IETF cannot tell nor enforce > what implementors > or network administrators do or don't. > > - Alain. > > > > On Dec 5, 2003, at 9:43 AM, Christian Huitema wrote: > >> >>>> It would actually be much simpler and less confusing to say only >>>> "The special behavior of this prefix SHOULD no longer be supported" >>>> and nothing about existing deployments. >>> >>> >>> This doesn't work operationally, because people use site-locals today. >>> And as we've debated endlessly we don't do flag days anymore. >>> >>> IMHO this text is good enough to ship. >> >> >> I understand Alain's point, the possible confusion about what do in >> service packs and other types of upgrades, but we went round and round >> and eventually decided to just leave the text as is. >> >> We had a very explicit discussion of this topic during the WG meeting in >> Minneapolis, and the sense of the room was rather close to Eliot's >> opinion. In fact, I proposed to change the text to Alain's wording, but >> Brian Carpenter objected that this would cause more confusion, since we >> really want to say "MUST not use" to prevent further usage, and "SHOULD" >> does not achieve that. The sense of the room was clearly with Brian. I >> guess this is one of the cases where the consensus is a bit rough. >> >> -- Christian Huitema > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 06:58:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06576 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 06:58:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATK1p-0002gA-Of for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:58:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8BwHCR010292 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 06:58:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATK1p-0002fr-6X for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:58:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06512 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 06:57:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATK1i-0001kZ-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:58:10 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATK1i-0001kV-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:58:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATK1c-0002Zd-6K; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:58:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATK1O-0002Yu-1c for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:57:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA06502 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 06:57:31 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATK1J-0001kF-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:57:45 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com ([131.228.20.27]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATK1J-0001kC-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 06:57:45 -0500 Received: from esvir03nok.nokia.com (esvir03nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.35]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB8Bvjx23446 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:57:45 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir03nok.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:57:44 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh003.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:57:44 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 13:57:43 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO6qGtqV89kTESmRma9PHr51IthKwC2gfGQ To: Cc: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2003 11:57:44.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[7D6009F0:01C3BD82] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ralph,=20 Thanks for the text, I agree & will add it. thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com] > Sent: 04 December, 2003 22:52 > To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk; ipv6@ietf.org; Pekka Savola > Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) >=20 >=20 > Here are some comments and suggested text for=20 > draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-06.txt: >=20 >=20 > It would be good to use either DHCP or DHCPv6 (but not both)=20 > consistently=20 > throughout the doc. >=20 >=20 > 5.3.1 Managed Address Configuration >=20 > The first two paragraphs are sort of redundant relative to the second=20 > paragraph in section 4.5.5. I suggest that the union of the=20 > information in=20 > the two sources be put into section 4.5.5, and the first two=20 > paragraphs of=20 > 5.3.1 be deleted. >=20 > I suggest the following text for 5.3.1: >=20 > Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address assignment=20 > initiate DHCP > to obtain IPv6 addresses and other configuration information upon > receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set, as > described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. In addition, in the > absence of a router, those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP for address > assignment MUST initiate DHCP to obtain IPv6 addresses and other > configuration information, as described in section 5.5.2 of RFC > 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do not use DHCP for address=20 > assignment > can ignore the 'M' flag in Router Advertisements. >=20 >=20 > 5.3.2 Other configuration information >=20 > I suggest changing the title of this section because the=20 > development of=20 > DHCP has moved toward using a DHCP in a way that is typically=20 > known as=20 > "stateless". I recognize the potential confusion with RFC=20 > 2462, in which=20 > "stateful" is pretty deeply embedded. >=20 > I think the first paragraph of 5.3.2 is redundant and should=20 > be merged in=20 > with the text in 4.5.5. >=20 > I suggest the following text for 5.3.2 >=20 > Those IPv6 Nodes that use DHCP to obtain other configuration > information initiate DHCP for other configuration information upon > receipt of a Router Advertisement with the 'O' flag set, as > described in section 5.5.3 of RFC 2462. Those IPv6 nodes that do > not use DHCP for other configuration information can=20 > ignore the 'O' > flag in Router Advertisements. >=20 > An IPv6 Node can use the subset of DHCP described in [DHCPv6-SL] > to obtain other configuration information. >=20 >=20 >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 07:12:18 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07079 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 07:12:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATKFA-0003mA-CX for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:12:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8CC4SJ014508 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 07:12:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATKFA-0003lv-7n for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:12:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07037 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 07:11:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATKF9-0001yL-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:12:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATKF9-0001yI-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:12:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATKF6-0003gY-9u; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:12:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATKEh-0003fd-L8 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:11:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA07028 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 07:11:17 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATKEd-0001xh-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:11:31 -0500 Received: from mgw-x1.nokia.com ([131.228.20.21]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATKEc-0001xe-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:11:30 -0500 Received: from esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir05nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.37]) by mgw-x1.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hB8CBVv09292 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:11:31 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir05nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:11:24 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:11:23 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 14:11:23 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) Thread-Index: AcO9I1fiwKYNZyCBSLaeDvgvKR0M4wAYPKpg To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2003 12:11:23.0686 (UTC) FILETIME=[65BF1460:01C3BD84] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Tim, > There is a minor discrepancy in text between 2461 and 2462 that could > perhaps be clarified in the -bis work for those texts. This is = regarding=20 > the M flag referring to addresses and other options, or just = addresses. > Three parts of the texts have different nuances: >=20 > a) 2461 section 4.2 says M flag means hosts use the stateful protocol > for address assigment, and O flag means hosts used the stateful = protocol > for other (non-address) information. >=20 > b) Then in 2462 it says in Section 4 (p.9) and Section 5.2 (p.11) = again > that a "managed address configuration" flag indicates whether hosts = should=20 > use stateful autoconfiguration to obtain addresses and an "other = stateful > configuration" flag indicates whether hosts should use stateful=20 > autoconfiguration to obtain additional information (excluding = addresses). >=20 > c) But then in 5.5.3 of 2462 the RA processing text states what I = expect > most (all?) implementations actually do: "If the value of = ManagedFlag=20 > changes from FALSE to TRUE ... the host should invoke the stateful = address=20 > autoconfiguration protocol, requesting both address information and = other=20 > information." (i.e. for both information) >=20 > So the question is should the wording of (a) and (b) be changed to = reflect > the processing text of (c)? On their own, (a) and (b) suggest that to = get > the behaviour of (c) *both* the M and O bits should be set, but (c) = states > that only the M bit need be set for full stateful autoconfiguration.=20 I think that (c) is the correct behavior - should you suggest text for 2461 & 2462? John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 10:37:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14682 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:37:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNRC-00039b-NM for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:36:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8FagKj012117 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:36:42 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNRC-00039M-FZ for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:36:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14549 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:36:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNRA-0006aZ-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:36:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNR9-0006aW-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:36:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNQZ-00032j-CO; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:36:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATNQ6-00030y-6k for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:35:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14385 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 10:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNQ3-0006Wr-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:35:31 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATNQ3-0006Vn-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 10:35:31 -0500 Received: from edison.cisco.com (edison.cisco.com [171.70.144.164]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id hB8FYvw5014753; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 07:34:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-184.cisco.com [10.21.64.184]) by edison.cisco.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_14041)/CISCO.SERVER.1.2) with ESMTP id HAA01624; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 07:34:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3FD49A1E.8080702@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 07:34:54 -0800 From: Eliot Lear User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031121 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter CC: Keith Moore , Alain Durand , huitema@windows.microsoft.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt References: <20031205154223.7808e0ca.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3FD1ECDF.DB463A3F@zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <3FD1ECDF.DB463A3F@zurich.ibm.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.82.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Which software release counts as "new" is indeed not a question for > the IETF, and each implementer will have to make his/her own judgement > about exactly when to remove the feature. But I don't think it's wrong to > say that they MUST remove it. Sorry- I'm lost in pronouns here. Who MUST remove it? If you're referring to new implementations (for some value of new), I agree. Eliot -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 18:55:02 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13585 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:55:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATVDB-0004Pw-H8 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:54:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB8Nsjce016974 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:54:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATVDB-0004Ph-CI for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:54:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13533 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATVD8-00023m-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:54:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATVD7-00023j-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:54:41 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATVCU-0004K1-CF; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:54:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATVBz-0004JN-2c for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:53:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA13467 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:53:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATVBv-00021x-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:53:27 -0500 Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com ([205.226.5.69]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATVBu-00021Z-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:53:26 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id hB8NquR09514; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:52:56 -0800 X-mProtect: <200312082352> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection Received: from walnut2.iprg.nokia.com (205.226.9.199, claiming to be "spruce.nokia.com") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpdjWen7M; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:52:51 PST Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20031208154850.00b72eb0@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com> X-Sender: hinden@mailhost.iprg.nokia.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:51:09 -0800 To: ipv6@ietf.org From: Bob Hinden Subject: Draft IPv6 Minutes from Minneapolis IETF Cc: bob.hinden@nokia.com, Brian Haberman Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_2088229935==_" Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=====================_2088229935==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Draft IPv6 Minutes from Minneapolis IETF are attached. Many thanks to Steven Blake and Dave Thaler for taking the minutes. Corrections to the chairs. Thanks, Bob Hinden and Brian Haberman --=====================_2088229935==_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ipv6-nov2003-minutes.txt" IPv6 Working Group Minneapolis IETF November 11 & 12, 2003 Chairs: Bob Hinden Brian Haberman Minutes taken by Steven Blake and Dave Thaler. Edited by Bob Hinden ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tuesday, November 11, 2003 Introduction and Agenda Bashing, Chairs (5 min) Milestone Review and Document Status, Chairs (10 minutes) Local Communications Goals, Tony Hain & Fred Templin (15 minutes) draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-03.txt Goal: discussion of open issues Tunnel MIB, Dave Thaler (10 minutes) draft-thaler-inet-tunnel-mib-00.txt Goal: overview of proposal, adopt as WG item? Proxy RA, Dave Thaler (10 minutes) draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-01.txt Goal: status update, adopt as WG item? ICMPv6 Updates, Bob Hinden (10 minutes) draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-02.txt Goal: status update Wednesday, November 12, 2003 Router Selection, Dave Thaler (10 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt Goal: issue discussion, next steps Neighbor Discovery Updates, Tatuya Jinmei (15 minutes) draft-soliman-ipv6-2461-bis-00.txt Goal: issue discussion Stateless Autoconfiguration Updates, Tatuya Jinmei (15 minutes) draft-jinmei-ipv6-rfc2462bis-00.txt Goal: issue discussion Scoped Address Arch Document, Tatuya Jinmei (10 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-00.txt Goal: discussion of last call comments Site-Local Deprecation Document, Christian Huitema (20 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt Goal: discussion of last call comments Unique Local Addresses Document, Bob Hinden (15 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-01.txt Goal: discussion of last call comments Address Architecture Update, Bob Hinden (15 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt Goal: review changes and plan for moving forward Identifier/Locator Separation, Kurt Lindqvist (10 minutes) ----------------------------------------------- Introduction and Agenda Bashing, Chairs (5 min) ----------------------------------------------- The Brian Haberman introduced the meeting and reviewed the agenda. Elizabeth Rodriquez (IMSS chair) announced that the IPv6 over FiberChannel draft is in last call in IMSS working group. TAHI Announcement: see slides Testing Event - Jan 19-23, 2003 - Japan - New test suite (IPv6 & SIP) - See http://www.tahi.org for more information --------------------------------------------------------- Milestone Review and Document Status, Chairs (10 minutes) --------------------------------------------------------- MILESTONES (previous dates in parenthesis) Done Submit Prefix Delegation requirements and submit to IESG for Informational. Done Submit TCP MIB to IESG for Proposed Standard. Done Submit IPv6 Node Requirements to IESG for Informational. Done Submit Forwarding Table MIB to IESG for Proposed Standard. Done Submit IP MIB to IESG for Proposed Standard. Nov 03 Submit Site-Local Deprecation document to IESG for Informational Nov 03 Submit Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses to IESG for Proposed Standard. Dec 03 (Nov 03) Submit update to ICMPv6 (RFC2463) to be republished at Draft Standard. Dec 03 (Nov 03) Submit Router Preferences, More-Specific Routes, and Load Sharing to IESG for Proposed Standard. Feb 04 (Dec 03) Submit updates to Auto Configuration (RFC2462) and Neighbor Discovery (RFC2461) to be republished at Draft Standard. Dec 03 Submit Proxy RA to IESG for Proposed Standard Dec 03 (Oct 03) Submit Link Scoped IPv6 Multicast Addresses to IESG for Proposed Standard. Dec 03 (Oct 03) Submit IPv6 Scoped Addressing Architecture to IESG for Proposed Standard. Dec 03 Submit update to IPv6 over PPP (RFC2472) to IESG for Draft Standard. Jan 04 (Oct 03) Submit UDP MIB to IESG for Proposed Standard. Jan 04 (Nov 03) Submit Requirements for Local Addressing to IESG for Informational Jan 04 (Nov 03) Submit Update to Privacy Extensions for Stateless Autoconfiguration document (RFC3041) to the IESG for Draft Standard. Jan 04 (Oct 03) Resubmit Node Information Queries to IESG for Proposed Standard. Jan 04 (Nov 03) Re-charter or close working group. PUBLISHED & APPROVALS RFC's Published RFC3587, "IPv6 Global Unicast Address Format" IESG Approved none STATUS OF CURRENT WORK ITEMS Flow Label - Editor: Jarno Rajahalme - Milestone: Done o Submit for PS - Status: o In IESG o New draft submitted to resolve IESG comments - Open Issues: o None known Proxy RA - Editor: Dave Thaler - Milestones: Dec 03 o Submit to IESG for PS - Status: New draft o To be discussed in WG Prefix Delegation Requirements - Editor: Shin Miyakawa - Milestone: Done o Submit for Info - Status: In IESG o New draft submitted that responds to IESG comments - Open Issues: o None known TCP MIB - Editor: Rajiv Raghunarayan - Milestone: Done o Submit for PS - Status: Submitted to IESG - Open Issues: o None known IPv6 Node Requirements - Editor: John Loughney - Milestone: Done o Submit for Info - Status: In IESG o New Draft submitted that responds to AD comments - Open Issues: o None known Forwarding Table MIB - Editor: Brian Haberman - Milestone: Done o Submit for PS - Status: In IESG - Open Issues: o None known Node Information Queries - Editor: Matt Crawford - Milestone: Oct 03 o Re-submit for PS o Update milestone to Jan 04 - Status: New draft in w.g. last call o New draft need to resolve issues raised on mailing list and at Vienna IETF - Open Issues: UDP MIB - Editor: John Flick - Milestone: Oct 03 o Submit for PS o Update milestone to Jan 04 - Status: New draft available - Open Issues: o none known o Ready for w.g. last call? IP MIB - Editor: Shawn Routhier - Milestone: Done o Submit for PS - Status: In IESG - Open Issues: o Will be delayed by INET Address TC o Dependent on Router Selection Draft Default Router Preferences - Editor: Dave Thaler - Milestone: Nov 03 o Submit to IESG for PS o Update milestone to Dec 03 - Status: AD Comments Received - Open Issues: o Split load balancing into separate document and resolve issues o To be discussed in w.g. Link-Scoped Multicast - Editor: Jung-Soo Park - Milestone: Oct 03 o Submit for PS o Update milestone to Dec 03 - Status: WG Last Call - Open Issues: o No technical issues, but is it needed? o OK to advance? Comment: We don't need link-scoped multicast; changes SSM semantics. ACTION: Chairs need to post query to mailing list to determine working group consensus on how to move forward with the Link-Scoped Multicast draft. Scoped Addressing Architecture - Editor: Jinmei Tatuya - Milestone: Oct 03 o Submit for PS o Update milestone to Dec 03 - Status: Working Group Last Call - Open Issues: o Need to be consistent with INET Address TC on default zone values o OK to advance (after new draft)? Savola: Scoped Architecture cannot go forward until ICMPv6 is updated. Site-Local Deprecation - Editors: Christian Huitema, Brian Carpenter - Milestone: Nov 03 o Submit for Informational - Status: In working group last call - Open Issues: o Issues raised on mailing list o To be discussed in w.g. meeting Unique Local Addresses - Editor: Bob Hinden - Milestone: Nov 03 o Submit for PS - Status: In working group last call - Open Issues: o Issues raised on mailing list o To be discussed in w.g. meeting Requirements for Local Addressing - Editor: T. Hain, F. Templin - Milestone: Nov 03 o Submit for Informational o Update milestone to Jan 04 - Status: Individual submission - Open Issues: o Discussion on mailing list o Will be discussed in w.g. meeting IPv6 Addressing Architecture - Editor: Bob Hinden - Milestone: (none) o Re-Submit for Draft Standard o New milestone Jan 04 - Status: Draft available - Open Issues: o Dependent on Site-Local deprecation o Will be discussed in w.g. meeting Work Not Started - ICMPv6 Update - Privacy Extensions Update - PPPv6 Update Textual Representation of IPv4 and IPv6 Addresses - Author: Andrew Main o - Fixes a long history of broken ABNF definitions of textual representations o Does not cover scoped address syntax or prefix length syntax - Important to get this right, to ensure correct parsing by UIs, etc. - Request: o Please read it & prepare for decision whether to adopt as WG item o Standards track vs Informational? Textual representation: ABNF already moved out of the Address Architecture specification some time ago. Jinmei: Textual representation has a relationship to address architecture. Hinden: No; this is dependent on address architecture, not the other way around. Carpenter: Talked to co-author (Zephram); ABNF definitions have been broken for awhile (including IPv4 dotted quad). ACTION: Chairs to send out note if anyone implements an ABNF parser. --------------------------------------------------------- Local Communications Goals, Tony Hain & Fred Templin (15 minutes) draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-03.txt Goal: discussion of open issues --------------------------------------------------------- Hain : People want to tell other people how to run their networks. Not IETF business. Keith Moore: IP tells people how to run their networks. People who misuse IP can cause harm. Fred Templin gave remainder of presentation. --------------------------------------------------------- Tunnel MIB, Dave Thaler (10 minutes) draft-thaler-inet-tunnel-mib-00.txt Goal: overview of proposal, adopt as WG item? --------------------------------------------------------- Savola: have you thought about what kind of IANA registry you want to have? Dave: rules should be identical to what you need to do to get an iftype value (treat iftype the same as tunneltype). Haberman: Should ipv6 adopt this document? Chairs call the question. No objection to making this a working group item. ACTION: Next version of will be an IPv6 working group document. --------------------------------------------------------- Proxy RA, Dave Thaler (10 minutes) draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-01.txt Goal: status update, adopt as WG item? --------------------------------------------------------- Dave Thaler gave presentation. Itojun: You propose to add MTU option, what is the relationship with this modification and IPsec or SEND? Dave: If there are any security parts of the RA, they are stripped (unsecured RA), or we ignore it. It looks like a router that doesn't implement SEND to hosts. Dave tends to agree with Brian Carpenter that this should become Informational, not PS. Any opinions? Droms: Any interoperability issues? Or does this merely define how a device would implement this function. Dave: mainly the router. Trying to show that you can do this without NAT. Huitema: what about spanning tree? Dave: Optional; don't always need loop prevention. Dudley: Important to default (Spanning Tree) to on. For those links that have the requirements, should it be used as default. Dave: Yes. Haberman: Any objection to adopting this document as a w.g. document for the ND proxy work item, as informational. No objections. Adopt as a working group document? For Informational. No objections. ACTION: Next version of will be an IPv6 working group document. --------------------------------------------------------- ICMPv6 Updates, Bob Hinden (10 minutes) draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-v3-02.txt Goal: status update --------------------------------------------------------- Savola: Should we redo the w.g. last-call? Hinden: Yes, when new draft is out. Also, do we have to redo the implementation reports? Hinden: Need to look at that and check with the ADs. Chown: Extra ICMPv6 type: Site Exit Routers suggested in multi6. Should we add that in this document? Hinden: Not sure we should do it now; it can use experimental types. Haberman: Same issue with MLDv2 spec. Could have requested a code from IANA without any IETF action. Multi6 could go request a type on their own (at least until we change the IANA policy in this document). Question: Who is the editor. Hinden: Currently I am, and we are working for new editor. If interested, please contact the chairs. ---------------------------- Wednesday, November 12, 2003 ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- Router Selection, Dave Thaler (10 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt Goal: issue discussion, next steps --------------------------------------------------------- Savola: Don't use uppercase "may" in last guideline on slide 5. Thinks it is a misuse of terminology. Narten: Recommendations for operators or implementors. A: Operators. First three will be lower case, last will be upper case. --------------------------------------------------------- Neighbor Discovery Updates, Tatuya Jinmei (15 minutes) draft-soliman-ipv6-2461-bis-00.txt Goal: issue discussion --------------------------------------------------------- security/mobility issues raised bug fixes, increase clarity goal is another Draft Standard RFC restrictions on new functionality Updates to RFC 2461 (Hesham primary editor) 1) mixed host/router behavior (on diff interfaces) Proposal: state distinction is per interface Templin: can you have a router with 1 interface? A: Yes 2) what if pref life > valid life? Proposal: MUST NOT send 3) onlink assumption considered harmful Proposal: remove this assumption 4) router lifetime values "inconsistencies". Does >18.2 hours violate spec? Proposal: allow any value up to 65535, don't change sending behavior in section 6 5) clarify M/O flags in context of DHCPv6 Proposal: say stateful for M is RFC 3315 need similar reference for O Greg Daley: dependency issues, O reference is just a draft 6) what happens if host receives prefix length > 64 Proposal: ignore and assume a 64-bit prefix? to be discussed on list 15) do we have to mandate link-local addresses as source in redirects? Proposal: yes, no change 7-9 are security issues Proposal: add a section on securing ND and refer to SEND for dynamic security expand security considerations section based on send-psreq draft add discussion on manual vs dynamic keying, currently vague 13) omission of prefix options considered harmful Proposal: handle with ND extensions for movement detection not in this spec 14) introduce globally unique link id for movement detection Proposal: handle with ND extensions not in this spec 10) relax requirements on RA frequency to allow 50ms Proposal: allow, but not sure if safe 11) remove random delay in MNs before RS Proposal: change 6.3.7 to allow no delay if know a hand-over (not startup, etc) has taken place 12) remove random delay in routers before RA Proposal: draft-mkhalil-ipv6-fastra-* Kempf: issues raised, may not want in this spec Narten: legitimate for mobility but need to look at as part of the whole problem useful to talk about in DNA, wary of changing this spec. Bound: Agree w/ Narten. Just pull these from the recycle issues and move forward. Narten: put them on hold, don't adopt them at this point may adopt them later if get resolution when document is still open Nordmark: #11 need to explain motivation for delay... power failure case clarifying intent may help the other discussion. Kempf: talk to security AD on 7-9 Daley: interested in looking at issues in DNA but not committing Huitema: don't add anything, have implementation experience with current draft and want to keep moving forward Narten: don't make specific changes now Itojun: limit to clarifications, don't introduce new stuff 15) remove delay before NS Proposal: discuss 18) add R/H flags per MIPv6 spec Proposal: accept Mobility: Clarifications now, but not new features. Limit effort to clarification.. --------------------------------------------------------- Stateless Autoconfiguration Updates, Tatuya Jinmei (15 minutes) draft-jinmei-ipv6-rfc2462bis-00.txt Goal: issue discussion --------------------------------------------------------- Some issues already have consensus on list others: 6) src addr selection issues: prefer link-local vs deprecated Proposal: add reference to RFC 3484 7) deprecated addr handling, semantics of "new" communication consensus: incoming TCP connection is not "new" Proposal: use text proposed on list also talk about case where application specified deprecated address 8) semantics of L=0 A=1 case (addr configurable but not on link) Proposal: no change 9) stable storage for auto-configured addr for stability Proposal: mention it but not mandate 10) issues raised in send "use IPsec" is not enough Proposal: add summary to security considerations, no change in protocol 11) DAD for 802.11 2462 says don't drop just because Llayer source != receiving node 802.11 doesn't meet this Proposal: add note in Appendix A and reference draft-park-ipv6-dad-problem-wlan Suggestion was made to have an IPv6-over-WiFi specification. 12) conflict with MLD spec re random delay for first packet 2462: if NS for DAD is 1st pkt, random delay MLD report is usually the first packet Proposal: just add a note? not a problem in _this_ spec Dino: so don't send MLD reports for link-local addresses Daley: that would break things 13) DAD relayed issues: dad delay, random delay, how optimize dad spec: SHOULD do DAD for every unicast addr MAY skip DAD in some cases should we remove the MAY? Proposal: DAD optimization is a separate draft need discussion on list 15) semantics of M/O what requirement keyword, and specify DHCPv6? Proposal: should mention DHCPv6, need to discuss details 16) whether a non-host router can use autoconf a) configure a global addr b) configure a link-local addr c) configure itself about "other" information Proposal: a=NO, b=YES, c=NO Haberman: clarification - you mean per-interface definition right? Jinmei: yes 17) 'not-yet-ready' status of an autoconf addr for renumbering can deprecated addr be used? Proposal: out of scope of this update, specify as extension 18) avoiding intf failure on DAD failure 2462: SHOULD be disabled if no link-loc addr Proposal: SHOULD but MAY allow automatic recovery 19) 2462 requires a 64-bit ID same issue as 2461 no suggestion so far Proposal: discuss on list Itojun: is there an issues list page? ?: #13 what do you mean by "strict" Jinmei: force DAD not DID #18 MIPv6 suggested 3041 id in this case, should 2462 suggest A mechanism? Hinden: need to be careful making changes Huitema: #18 is really a security violation, bad guy can disable everyone's interfaces. Chairs called question of making ND and Addr-Conf w.g. documents. No objections . Next version of drafts will be w.g. documents. ACTION: Next versions of and will be IPv6 working group documents. --------------------------------------------------------- Scoped Address Arch Document, Tatuya Jinmei (10 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-00.txt Goal: discussion of last call comments --------------------------------------------------------- last call issued Oct.22 most issues have consensus on list Default zone ID value draft suggests but does not require 0 issue: MIB needs 0 Proposal: SHOULD use zero Thaler: why SHOULD and not MUST? (for MIB compliance) Haberman: just make sure MIB and this doc agree Itojun: can we get implementation reports and if no one uses non-zero then can use MUST Alignment with draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep Proposal: add a reference to the text-rep draft normative or informative? Haberman: make sure reference looks like the ref in the addr arch doc (informative) number of authors > 5 default zone ids for "subnet-local" multicast scope Proposal: remove subnet-local, already removed from 3513 and addr-arch-v4 references ICMPv6 update as a normative reference shouldn't be a problem (do concurrently) --------------------------------------------------------- Site-Local Deprecation Document, Christian Huitema (20 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-01.txt Goal: discussion of last call comments --------------------------------------------------------- Huitema was called up to discuss, no slides two main comments 1 (Pekka etc) more text about why NAT is bad, e.g. from Margaret SL-IMPACT Proposal: OK 2 recommendation for deprecation current: existing behavior MUST be ignored by any new implementation Q: what is a new implementation, is there a flag date, what if shipping both old and new versions, etc one way: write weasel text other way: replace MUST by SHOULD (Huitema prefers this) rationale: writing more text doesn't help Hinden: Thinks current text is just fine. Carpenter: tends to agree with hinden, IETF doesn't have a clear procedure for versioning. No objection to SHOULD but like it with no changes. Leave it up to the implementor how to handle Nordmark: may be helpful to add a sentence to state the intent? Huitema: we already say that Hinden consensus summary: Leave deprecation text as is and bring in two paragraphs from Margaret's document. Haberman took consensus call: Any objection? No ACTION: Chairs will advance when next version of draft is out. --------------------------------------------------------- Unique Local Addresses Document, Bob Hinden (15 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-01.txt Goal: discussion of last call comments --------------------------------------------------------- Last call started Oct.22 Hinden is active author, Haberman is shepherding chair Need for ULAs need to provide for local disconnected/intermittent allocation Proposal: yes, better than other known alternatives Huitema posted summary to the list of alternatives and problems with them Application handling? do applications need special knowledge about these addresses? not introduced by this type of address, also applies to firewalls etc useful to investigate general solutions to this class of problems impact to source/destination addr selection? will longest match rules just work? provide more feedback via ICMP errors Moore: agree don't burden address scheme with this need to change address selection to get other things to work it's hard enough to get address selection right, will probably have to change it anyway Nordmark: ULAs are different than filtering etc, they're not reachable by design Moore: by design they're not globally reachable, but it's a stretch to say they're not reachable by the peers of interest. Don't want applications to assume they're not reachable if not global Nordmark: wrong impression is dangerous Moore: hard enough to get right Itojun: agree with Nordmark Daley: this is a routing problem, why not just send destination unreachable Hinden: see later slide, discussed later in the talk. Leakage Doc provides reasonable measures to prevent most leakage Uniqueness minimizes impact Leakage also affects firewalled addresses, etc ULA is a good tradeoff among alternatives Itojun: different types of filtering (e.g. don't advertise routes, do advertise and filter data, etc) Charging, IANA instructions IETF documents can't specify a specific charge or use of revenue Proposal: remove 10 Euro and say low cost and intent to prevent hoarding Geoff Huston (who raised issue) is okay with the new proposed text. Filtering black holing has bad side effects Proposal: MAY respond with ICMP admin prohibit Savola: is MAY strong enough? Hinden: isn't ICMP always a MAY? should be consistent with other places Savola: then change to SHOULD Hinden: OK Itojun: if we don't advertise then who will send admin prohibited Thaler: diff subtypes for different filtering methods Iljitsch van Beijnum: New ICMP message for source not right? Haberman: scope exceeded does that Iljitsch: is "scope" global here? Moore: three cases 1) trying to send out to global internet 2) trying to send to a ULA with no route 3) filtering between two local networks Carpenter: ICMP is likely to cross admin boundaries which may block ICMP not bad to define but can't rely on them arriving Moore: can be defined and work most of the time Alternative random algorithm Proposal: make sure others are allowed Best name Proposal: take to list Haberman: prefer really cool acronyms :) Propose to make the changes discussed and advance? Chown: language says need globally unique, but is probabilistically unique should be more clear Haberman calls for consensus: Any objection to proposed changes? No? Submit to IESG with changes? Yes? Moore: clarification - will revised document redo WG last call? Haberman: we could have 1 week last call Itojun: please ask whether we need another last call Wasserman: yes Iljitsch: locator/identifier separation work coming, not sure we should standardize something different Hinden: Not advisable to wait Narten: Right Carpenter: sentence used to be there "might be useful for Multihoming too" make sure it's out. Hinden thinks it's already out. Iljitsch: are they unroutable by design or by lack of a way to do it? so clarify. Hinden: says "not routable with currently technology" or something Kurt Lindqvist: don't wait Wasserman: there's no conflict with locator/identifier work ACTION: Chairs will start short working last call for when new draft is available. --------------------------------------------------------- Address Architecture Update, Bob Hinden (15 minutes) draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt Goal: review changes and plan for moving forward --------------------------------------------------------- site-locals removed from special list of prefixes added text describing SL deprecation added instructions in IANA considerations to reserve and not reassign changes dependent on approval of SL Deprecation document changes due to IAB recommendations 2.5 nodes shouldn't make assumptions about address structure 2.5.1 nodes aren't required to validate that u=1 is unique --------------------------------------------------------- Identifier/Locator Separation, Kurt Lindqvist (10 minutes) --------------------------------------------------------- Multi6 WG update A number of proposal (6 active drafts, more expired) many/most split identifier (who) and locator (where) semantics and syntax vary for most, locators are todays IPv6 addresses impact: - We will not turn off ipv6 :-) - All proposal will try to have no impact on ULPs - Most involve a shim layer between ULPs and IP considerations: - secure mapping of id<->locator - goals are in RFC 3582 - more operational considerations being written (current drafts from Nordmark, crocker) Itojun: SONY LIN6 draft mentions patent pending, so may be IPR issues ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meeting Adjourned ---------------------------------------------------------------- --=====================_2088229935==_-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 19:34:11 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15939 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:34:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATVp7-00064D-9S for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:33:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB90XvJu023322 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:33:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATVp6-00063s-SJ for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:33:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15914 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:33:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATVoz-000319-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:33:49 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATVoZ-0002xB-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:33:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATVmJ-0005iZ-GR; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:31:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATVm8-0005hS-P4 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:30:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA15713; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 19:30:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATVlc-0002u5-00; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:30:20 -0500 Received: from manatick.foretec.com ([4.17.168.5] helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATVl2-0002sd-00; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:29:44 -0500 Received: from unknown-1-11.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11] helo=mail.wrs.com) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ATVhX-0000vc-LZ; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 19:26:07 -0500 Received: from nsh-opal.windriver.com ([147.11.38.226]) by mail.wrs.com (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA09536; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 16:24:48 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20031208151427.02b6e050@mail.wrs.com> X-Sender: routhier@mail.wrs.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 16:29:06 -0800 To: "Dave Thaler" , From: "Shawn A. Routhier" Subject: RE: REVISED Last Call: 'Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)' to Proposed Standard Cc: , In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , At 10:30 AM 11/24/03 -0800, Dave Thaler wrote: I've snipped the sections I agree with and don't have questions about I will update the specification to match them if there are no other comments or discussion. >I just started implementing draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update-04.txt >and have the following comments: > > >4) >> ipSystemStatsInTruncatedPkts OBJECT-TYPE >[...] >> "The number of input IP datagrams discarded because datagram >> frame didn't carry enough data. > >This is unclear. If the frame didn't carry enough data to hold an IP >header, >is this counter incremented or ipSystemStatsInHdrErrors, or both? >As the case diagram implies, I think this counter should only be >incremented >if the IP header is valid. I think this would make the most sense and will make this update if there are no complaints. I'll point out that at least one current implementation doesn't operate in this fashion. It lumps frames that are too short for the header in with frames that are too short for the packet. >5) Are all three of InForwDatagrams, InNoRoutes, and OutForwDatagrams >needed? Per the case diagram, is it always the case that > InForwDatagrams = InNoRoutes + OutForwDatagrams >or it it legal for InDiscards or OutDiscards to be incremented >in between InForwDatagrams and OutForwDatagrams? I believe it is possible that inDiscards or outDiscards could be incremented. Also in note that in the interface specific case the interface may have changed. The ipIfStatsOutForwDatagrams counts packets on the outbound interface, while the ipIfStatsInForwDatagrams counts packets on the inbound interface. Potentially we could try and remove one of these objects from the system group but it doesn't seem worthwhile to do so. ipIfStatsOutForwDatagrams OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX Counter32 MAX-ACCESS read-only STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The number of datagrams which this entity received and for which it was successful in finding a path to their final destination. In entities which do not act as IP routers, this counter will include only those datagrams which were Source-Routed via this entity, and the Source-Route processing was successful. When tracking interface statistics the counter of the outgoing interface is incremented for a successfully forwarded datagram. >There's currently the note >"(2) The discard counters may increment at any time in the processing >path." >but it isn't clear which processing path. Obviously it should not be >legal for InDiscards to be incremented in the send path, or for >OutDiscards to be incremented in the receive path. But with the >forward path line, it's not clear where the legal "InDiscards" section >ends and the legal "OutDiscards" section begins. > >One simple fix would be to just specify that InDiscards applies anywhere >left of the InNoRoutes junction, and OutDiscards applies anywhere >right of it. That was my intention. I'll update the text. > >7) the ip6Forwarding object is described as >> "The indication of whether this entity is acting as an IPv6 >> router in respect to the forwarding of datagrams received >> by, but not addressed to, this entity. IPv6 routers forward >> datagrams. [...] > >However, forwarding is actually a per-interface attribute in general. >If a device is acting as a router on some interfaces and as a host >on others, what value should it report here? In my opinion it should >report true here (if this object is kept at all) and there should be >a per-interface Forwarding object. I agree with setting the object to TRUE if it is performing routing on any interfaces. I don't have an opinion on having a per-interface forwarding object. Any comments from the mailing list? Note: if we do add a per-interface forwarding object I'd suggest that the system forwarding object (ip6Forwarding) override the per-interface objects. So I could configure the interfaces properly and then toggle the device to forward or not based on a single object. >8) ipv6InterfacePhysicalAddress OBJECT-TYPE > >If this object is needed (as opposed to just using ifPhysAddress) >why does the same reason not apply to IPv4 also? There was some discussion on this object and the result was a belief that it was useful for v6. I suppose the same arguments could be made for v4, but I haven't heard anybody make them. Possibly people felt that it was useful enough to include in new (v6) code but not worthwhile to add to already existing v4 code? Any comments from the list? >10) ipv6InterfaceRetransmitTime OBJECT-TYPE >Is there a reason this doesn't apply to IPv4? >RFC 1122 says regarding ARP: >> [...] The recommended maximum rate is 1 per second per >> destination. Again, I suppose we could add it. I think this also falls into the category above, it might be useful to implement for new code but may not be worth retrofitting old code. (And do remember that this object refers to suggested times and not max times.) >It would seem that all objects in the ipv{4,6}InterfaceTables >should be the same except for ipv6InterfaceIdentifier. >Is there a reason they are not merged as was done with the >ipSystemStatsTable? As I recall my general assumptions were that the two tables would have different objects and might have new different objects added in the future. We could collapse the two tables and simply define appropriate not available values or suggest that an agent return no such instance. > >12) The ipDefaultRouterTable is indexed as >> INDEX {ipDefaultRouterAFType, ipDefaultRouterAddress} > >The current indexing requires the agent to report only one row when >the link zone id is the same for both interfaces (i.e. indicating >multiple interfaces are attached to the same physical link) and >the same router is reachable on both interfaces. That seems to be correct. >Per RFC 2461: >> Router list entries point to entries in the >> Neighbor Cache; [...] > >The inetNetToMediaTable instruments the neighbor cache and contains >the ifIndex in the INDEX. As a result, the MIB does not follow the >RFC 2461 model. To be consistent, ipDefaultRouterIfIndex must be >in the INDEX clause to allow an entry to point to a specific >inetNetToMediaEntry. I would think that to be consistent I would actually need to point the router list entries to inetnetToMediaTable entries. However I don't like that at all and find adding ipDefaultRouterIfIndex to the indexing to be better. An alternative is to decide that the router list shouldn't contain the IF contact information at all and should simply be a list of the default routers. As I think the IF information is useful I intend to leave it in and add it to the index. >16) The case diagram accounts for the case where the IF changes on the > receive path, but what about on the send path? The same thing >happens > in the weak host model. > > Similarly, on a router, a packet could be forwarded and then be > locally destined. Or it could be locally sourced and then > forwarded. In these cases, should InForwDatagrams and >OutForwDatagrams > be incremented? I would say yes, although the case diagram doesn't > allow for it. It would be nice to add a note to at least add a note > to this effect. I think I understand your first example (forwarded and then locally destined) I don't think I understand your second. Can you elaborate somewhat? Also in the first example I could see this being treated as being sent out one interface and received on another even if the packet never went to the wire. In this scheme I believe the counters would be correct, however I don't know if that's what you have in mind. I'm willing to add text as necessary but need some more specifics to understand what you think I should add (and where). > > >Missing references >------------------ > >> ipv6RouteTable) has been removed from this MIB. The replacements or >> updates for this information is in the update to the IP Forwarding >Table >> MIB. > >add a reference to that document so the reader can find them I think this should be informative, do you agree? >> REFERENCE "draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt, section 2.1" > >The reference is missing from the References section. I think this one needs to be normative, do you agree? > > > >-Dave > Thanks Dave Shawn A. Routhier SMTS Wind River Networks Business Unit 510 749 2095 office 510 749 2560 fax www.windriver.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 8 21:53:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22074 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:53:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATY0O-0003Da-A4 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:53:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB92riDt012364 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:53:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATY0O-0003DL-4V for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:53:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22034 for ; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:53:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATY0L-0005ab-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:53:41 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATY0K-0005aX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:53:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATXzh-00037N-Kx; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATXyk-00033T-AN for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:52:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA21815; Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:51:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATXyh-0005VA-00; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:51:59 -0500 Received: from mail1.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.125]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATXyg-0005UN-00; Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:51:58 -0500 Received: from inet-vrs-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.8.27]) by mail1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:52:22 -0800 Received: from 157.54.8.155 by inet-vrs-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Mon, 08 Dec 2003 18:51:30 -0800 Received: from RED-IMC-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.2.168]) by inet-hub-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:51:23 -0800 Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.84]) by RED-IMC-04.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:53:02 -0800 Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.81]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:50:57 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7122.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: REVISED Last Call: 'Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)' to Proposed Standard Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:51:25 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: REVISED Last Call: 'Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)' to Proposed Standard thread-index: AcO96udxHOCYxqW0RTWrjj3q8BpDJAAEByQg From: "Dave Thaler" To: "Shawn A. Routhier" , Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2003 02:50:57.0693 (UTC) FILETIME=[45817CD0:01C3BDFF] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Shawn A. Routhier writes: > I've snipped the sections I agree with and don't have questions about > I will update the specification to match them if there are no other > comments or discussion. >=20 > >4) > >> ipSystemStatsInTruncatedPkts OBJECT-TYPE > >[...] > >> "The number of input IP datagrams discarded because datagram > >> frame didn't carry enough data. > > > >This is unclear. If the frame didn't carry enough data to hold an IP > >header, > >is this counter incremented or ipSystemStatsInHdrErrors, or both? > >As the case diagram implies, I think this counter should only be > >incremented > >if the IP header is valid. >=20 > I think this would make the most sense and will make this update if there > are no complaints. >=20 > I'll point out that at least one current implementation doesn't operate > in this fashion. It lumps frames that are too short for the header in > with frames that are too short for the packet. I agree that would be a valid implementation. Not sure how to express that in the case diagram though. I think I'd just add a note at the bottom of it. > >5) Are all three of InForwDatagrams, InNoRoutes, and OutForwDatagrams > >needed? Per the case diagram, is it always the case that > > InForwDatagrams =3D InNoRoutes + OutForwDatagrams > >or it it legal for InDiscards or OutDiscards to be incremented > >in between InForwDatagrams and OutForwDatagrams? >=20 > I believe it is possible that inDiscards or outDiscards could be > incremented. >=20 > Also in note that in the interface specific case the interface may have > changed. > The ipIfStatsOutForwDatagrams counts packets on the outbound interface, > while > the ipIfStatsInForwDatagrams counts packets on the inbound interface. >=20 > Potentially we could try and remove one of these objects from the system > group > but it doesn't seem worthwhile to do so. Agree. [...] > >7) the ip6Forwarding object is described as > >> "The indication of whether this entity is acting as an IPv6 > >> router in respect to the forwarding of datagrams received > >> by, but not addressed to, this entity. IPv6 routers forward > >> datagrams. [...] > > > >However, forwarding is actually a per-interface attribute in general. > >If a device is acting as a router on some interfaces and as a host > >on others, what value should it report here? In my opinion it should > >report true here (if this object is kept at all) and there should be > >a per-interface Forwarding object. >=20 > I agree with setting the object to TRUE if it is performing routing on > any interfaces. >=20 > I don't have an opinion on having a per-interface forwarding object. Any > comments from the mailing list? We could add it but not make it mandatory. > Note: if we do add a per-interface forwarding object I'd suggest that the > system > forwarding object (ip6Forwarding) override the per-interface objects. So > I could configure the interfaces properly and then toggle the device to > forward > or not based on a single object. Agree, that is what I implemented. > >8) ipv6InterfacePhysicalAddress OBJECT-TYPE > > > >If this object is needed (as opposed to just using ifPhysAddress) > >why does the same reason not apply to IPv4 also? >=20 > There was some discussion on this object and the result was a belief that > it > was useful for v6. I suppose the same arguments could be made for v4, but > I > haven't heard anybody make them. Possibly people felt that it was useful > enough > to include in new (v6) code but not worthwhile to add to already existing > v4 > code? >=20 > Any comments from the list? I am unhappy with its existence for IPv6 only. I would like to see it either removed, or made available for both v4 and v6. The v4 version may be optional though so as to not cause a burden on prior implementations. My reasoning is that I don't want to have separate code for IPv4 and IPv6 if I can help it. > >10) ipv6InterfaceRetransmitTime OBJECT-TYPE > >Is there a reason this doesn't apply to IPv4? > >RFC 1122 says regarding ARP: > >> [...] The recommended maximum rate is 1 per second per > >> destination. >=20 > Again, I suppose we could add it. I think this also falls into the > category above, > it might be useful to implement for new code but may not be worth > retrofitting old > code. (And do remember that this object refers to suggested times and not > max times.) Making the v4 object optional would be fine with me. > >It would seem that all objects in the ipv{4,6}InterfaceTables > >should be the same except for ipv6InterfaceIdentifier. > >Is there a reason they are not merged as was done with the > >ipSystemStatsTable? >=20 > As I recall my general assumptions were that the two tables would have > different > objects and might have new different objects added in the future. We > could collapse > the two tables and simply define appropriate not available values or > suggest that an > agent return no such instance. Yes collapsing them would be my preference, for code simplicity. > > > >12) The ipDefaultRouterTable is indexed as > >> INDEX {ipDefaultRouterAFType, ipDefaultRouterAddress} > > > >The current indexing requires the agent to report only one row when > >the link zone id is the same for both interfaces (i.e. indicating > >multiple interfaces are attached to the same physical link) and > >the same router is reachable on both interfaces. >=20 > That seems to be correct. >=20 >=20 > >Per RFC 2461: > >> Router list entries point to entries in the > >> Neighbor Cache; [...] > > > >The inetNetToMediaTable instruments the neighbor cache and contains > >the ifIndex in the INDEX. As a result, the MIB does not follow the > >RFC 2461 model. To be consistent, ipDefaultRouterIfIndex must be > >in the INDEX clause to allow an entry to point to a specific > >inetNetToMediaEntry. >=20 > I would think that to be consistent I would actually need to > point the router list entries to inetnetToMediaTable entries. > However I don't like that at all and find adding ipDefaultRouterIfIndex > to the indexing to be better. >=20 > An alternative is to decide that the router list shouldn't contain the > IF contact information at all and should simply be a list of the default > routers. >=20 > As I think the IF information is useful I intend to leave it in and add > it to the index. Agree. > >16) The case diagram accounts for the case where the IF changes on the > > receive path, but what about on the send path? The same thing > >happens > > in the weak host model. > > > > Similarly, on a router, a packet could be forwarded and then be > > locally destined. Or it could be locally sourced and then > > forwarded. In these cases, should InForwDatagrams and > >OutForwDatagrams > > be incremented? I would say yes, although the case diagram doesn't > > allow for it. It would be nice to add a note to at least add a note > > to this effect. >=20 > I think I understand your first example (forwarded and then locally > destined) > I don't think I understand your second. Can you elaborate somewhat? The second example would be where you are running an app on a machine with either forwarding enabled, or that implements the weak host model. The app chooses a specific source address (e.g. with a bind) and then sends a packet to a specific destination address. The routing table lookup decides the packet should go out another interface than the one the source address is on. Because forwarding is enabled, this is allowed. The packets come down from the app, logically go through a forwarding path, and then go out the outgoing interface. There are multiple ways to implement this, but the one I have in mind is the one where the interface context changes as you go down the send path (just like how note (3) says the interface can change on the receive path). So OutRequests is incremented on the address's interface and OutTransmits is incremented on the outgoing interface. The current description of InForwDatagrams implies it would be incremented, since it says nothing about whether the packet was locally- or remotely-originated. The current description of OutForwDatagrams implies it would not be incremented since it says "received". I believe the wording should not be different. So either both should say "received" or both should say "attempted to forward". At this point, I have no strong=20 preference either way. > Also in the first example I could see this being treated as being sent out > one > interface and received on another even if the packet never went to the > wire. In > this scheme I believe the counters would be correct, however I don't know > if > that's what you have in mind. >=20 > I'm willing to add text as necessary but need some more specifics to > understand > what you think I should add (and where). I think we should not try to make the case diagram any more complicated, but I think the DESCRIPTION clauses should be updated as noted above, and it would be good to add a note under the case diagram which depends=20 on the answer to whether In/OutForwDatagrams should be incremented. > >Missing references > >------------------ > > > >> ipv6RouteTable) has been removed from this MIB. The replacements or > >> updates for this information is in the update to the IP Forwarding > >Table > >> MIB. > > > >add a reference to that document so the reader can find them >=20 > I think this should be informative, do you agree? Agree. > >> REFERENCE "draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-02.txt, section 2.1" > > > >The reference is missing from the References section. >=20 > I think this one needs to be normative, do you agree? Agree. -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 04:17:51 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19132 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:17:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATdzr-00050O-4M for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:17:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB99HZFo019235 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:17:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATdzp-000509-Pu for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:17:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19086 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:17:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATdzn-0004Hr-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:17:31 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATdzm-0004Ho-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:17:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATdzL-0004sg-Vc; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:17:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATdye-0004pq-8l for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:16:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA19060 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 04:16:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATdyb-0004Fe-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:16:17 -0500 Received: from mtagate7.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.156]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATdya-0004F8-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:16:16 -0500 Received: from d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.180] (may be forged)) by mtagate7.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hB99FVwj048036; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:15:31 GMT Received: from collon.zurich.ibm.com (collon.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.143]) by d12relay01.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id hB99FUUU281102; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:15:30 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.145.175.184]) by collon.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA31838; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:15:27 +0100 Message-ID: <3FD5927B.B13834AC@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:14:35 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eliot Lear CC: Keith Moore , Alain Durand , huitema@windows.microsoft.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt References: <20031205154223.7808e0ca.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3FD1ECDF.DB463A3F@zurich.ibm.com> <3FD49A1E.8080702@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The implementer is the only person who can remove it. As I said in Minneapolis, the problem here is that we don't have clear versioning in IETF standards. If we could say "site local was standard in IPv6.1, is deprecated in IPv6.2, and will be removed from IPv6.3" then the conformance issue is immediately clarified and implementers know what it means to claim conformance to IPv6.3, i.e. no site local support. But I think Keith's suggestion is correct - add in the text descrription prior to the normative statements. It's the best we can do, let's just do it. Brian Eliot Lear wrote: > > Brian E Carpenter wrote: > > > Which software release counts as "new" is indeed not a question for > > the IETF, and each implementer will have to make his/her own judgement > > about exactly when to remove the feature. But I don't think it's wrong to > > say that they MUST remove it. > > Sorry- I'm lost in pronouns here. Who MUST remove it? If you're > referring to new implementations (for some value of new), I agree. > > Eliot > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 11:31:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02622 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:31:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATkld-0004fA-UQ for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:31:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9GVLHh017918 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:31:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATkld-0004eu-Ls for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:31:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02558 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:31:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATklc-0002dg-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:31:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATklc-0002dd-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:31:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATkkO-0004NT-Er; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:30:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATkk1-0004Md-Ey for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:29:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02491 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 11:29:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATkk0-0002br-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:29:40 -0500 Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATkjz-0002bm-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 11:29:39 -0500 Received: from esunmail ([129.147.156.34]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hB9GTTPh015483 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:29:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from xpa-fe1 (esunmail [129.147.156.34]) by edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HPM00DMRZ55L7@edgemail1.Central.Sun.COM> for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:29:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([66.93.78.11]) by mail.sun.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.21 (built Sep 8 2003)) with ESMTPSA id <0HPM006HTZ54MK@mail.sun.net> for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 09:29:29 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 08:32:39 -0800 From: Alain Durand Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-deprecate-site-local-02.txt In-reply-to: <3FD5927B.B13834AC@zurich.ibm.com> To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Message-id: <4DCCC678-2A65-11D8-9A28-00039376A6AA@sun.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20031205154223.7808e0ca.moore@cs.utk.edu> <3FD1ECDF.DB463A3F@zurich.ibm.com> <3FD49A1E.8080702@cisco.com> <3FD5927B.B13834AC@zurich.ibm.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT On Dec 9, 2003, at 1:14 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > But I think Keith's suggestion is correct - add in the text > descrription > prior to the normative statements. It's the best we can do, let's just > do it. I could live with that. - Alain. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 9 13:33:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06963 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:33:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmfx-0001l4-Hi for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:33:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hB9IXbq9006755 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:33:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmfx-0001ks-CA for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:33:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06936 for ; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:33:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmfv-0004zC-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:33:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmfu-0004z9-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:33:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmfN-0001f5-SM; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:33:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1ATmeg-0001ec-BX for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:32:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA06890; Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:32:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmee-0004y0-00; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:32:16 -0500 Received: from mail4.microsoft.com ([131.107.3.122]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1ATmed-0004wF-00; Tue, 09 Dec 2003 13:32:15 -0500 Received: from mail6.microsoft.com ([157.54.6.196]) by mail4.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:31:51 -0800 Received: from inet-vrs-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.6.181]) by mail6.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:32:38 -0800 Received: from 157.54.5.25 by inet-vrs-06.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (InterScan E-Mail VirusWall NT); Tue, 09 Dec 2003 10:31:24 -0800 Received: from red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.9.102]) by inet-hub-03.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:31:20 -0800 Received: from win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.0.84]) by red-imc-01.redmond.corp.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:31:06 -0800 Received: from WIN-MSG-10.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.12.81]) by win-imc-02.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1069); Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:30:40 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7122.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: REVISED Last Call: 'Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)' to Proposed Standard Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 10:31:33 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: REVISED Last Call: 'Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)' to Proposed Standard thread-index: AcO96udxHOCYxqW0RTWrjj3q8BpDJAAEByQgACHNhAA= From: "Dave Thaler" To: "Shawn A. Routhier" , Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2003 18:30:40.0112 (UTC) FILETIME=[8C0BDF00:01C3BE82] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable One more comment on #8... > > >8) ipv6InterfacePhysicalAddress OBJECT-TYPE > > > > > >If this object is needed (as opposed to just using ifPhysAddress) > > >why does the same reason not apply to IPv4 also? > > > > There was some discussion on this object and the result was a belief > > that it was useful=20 [...] It would be helpful to implementers to state why this object is needed. I.e., when could it be different from ifPhysAddress? (Is it just if manually configured otherwise?) Also, is it required that the value of this object be in the ifRcvAddressTable? It seems like that ought to be a requirement. -Dave -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 10 15:42:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15584 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:42:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUB9e-0005dB-Hf for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:41:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBAKfsKP021639 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:41:54 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUB9e-0005cw-Dk for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:41:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15475 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:41:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUB9Y-0000tc-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:41:48 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUB9X-0000tX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:41:47 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUB8q-0005QW-5T; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:41:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUB86-0005PZ-Ql for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:18 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15279; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312102040.PAA15279@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ipv6@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:16 -0500 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Node Requirements Author(s) : J. Loughney Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2003-12-10 This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-10160026.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-10160026.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 03:46:15 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22496 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:46:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUMSA-0001Xi-W5 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:45:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBB8jk2J005912 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:45:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUMS7-0001XH-Qr for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:45:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22456 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:45:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUMS4-0005w1-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:45:40 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUMS4-0005vy-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:45:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUMRV-0001RW-Dx; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:45:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUMQs-0001Pe-SC for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:44:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA22437 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:44:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUMQp-0005vP-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:44:23 -0500 Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([219.101.47.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUMQo-0005vM-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:44:22 -0500 Received: from itojun.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D35ED82 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:44:21 +0900 (JST) To: ipv6@ietf.org X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD 90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2 Subject: getnameinfo and various protocol types From: itojun@iijlab.net Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:44:21 +0900 Message-Id: <20031211084421.D35ED82@coconut.itojun.org> Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , getnameinfo(3) specification assumes that there are only two transport protocols - tcp and udp. when performing service name lookup it would use "tcp" if NI_DGRAM is not specified, and "udp" when NI_DGRAM is specified. now we have couple of new transport protocols coming, such as SCTP and DCCP. how can we support service name lookup for those? i.e. how can we tell getnameinfo(3) to use "sctp" or "dccp" for the 2nd argument of getservbyport(3)? my proposal: define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified it would cause EAI_FAIL. itojun -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 07:16:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA27013 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:16:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUPjB-0000mn-8D for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:15:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBCFXlv003017 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:15:33 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUPjB-0000ma-26 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:15:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26958 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:15:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUPjA-0001QE-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:15:32 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUPj9-0001Pu-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:15:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUPih-0000iC-5V; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:15:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUPiP-0000hT-G1 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:14:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA26936 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:14:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUPiP-0001PN-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:14:45 -0500 Received: from motgate8.mot.com ([129.188.136.8]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUPiO-0001PK-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 07:14:44 -0500 Received: from il06exr04.mot.com (il06exr04.mot.com [129.188.137.134]) by motgate8.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate3) with ESMTP id hBBCEgP1018108 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 05:14:42 -0700 (MST) Received: from motorola.com (mvp-10-238-2-33.corp.mot.com [10.238.2.33]) by il06exr04.mot.com (Motorola/il06exr04) with ESMTP id hBBCEaal001200 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 06:14:39 -0600 Message-ID: <3FD85FAB.F707332B@motorola.com> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:14:35 +1100 From: Andrew White Reply-To: awhite@arc.corp.mot.com Organization: Motorola Australia Research Centre X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types References: <20031211084421.D35ED82@coconut.itojun.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit itojun@iijlab.net wrote: > > my proposal: > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > it would cause EAI_FAIL. And define NI_TCP, which is also the default if none is specified? I'd also propose deprecating the default, to get everyone in the habit of specifying something. -- Andrew White -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 10:16:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05403 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:16:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUSXl-0008TH-OT for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:15:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBFFvsL032557 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:15:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUSXl-0008T2-F5 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:15:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05327 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:15:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUSXj-0006BV-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:15:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUSXd-0006BH-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:15:49 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUSWs-0008OR-MF; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:15:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUSWW-0008Nz-9L for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:14:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA05184 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUSWT-0006B0-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:14:37 -0500 Received: from imr1.ericy.com ([198.24.6.9]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUSWT-0006Ar-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:14:37 -0500 Received: from eamrcnt750.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.51]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBBFE7Wm003020; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:14:07 -0600 (CST) Received: by eamrcnt750.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 09:13:24 -0600 Received: from [142.133.72.18] (142.133.72.18 [142.133.72.18]) by EAMMLEX034.lmc.ericsson.se with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id XHG62GX3; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:13:31 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:12:02 -0500 (EST) From: Suresh Krishnan X-X-Sender: lmcsukr@localhost.localdomain Reply-To: Suresh Krishnan To: itojun@iijlab.net cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types In-Reply-To: <7B2A7784F4B7F0409947481F3F3FEF830D8F689C@eammlex037.lmc.ericsson.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Itojun, > my proposal: > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > it would cause EAI_FAIL. In this case it would be better if getnameinfo returned EAI_BADFLAGS rather than EAI_FAIL as it is more indicative of the problem. Regards Suresh > >itojun > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 13:14:57 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12511 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:14:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUVKY-0000os-K6 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:14:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBIEUrX003146 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:14:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUVKY-0000of-FS for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:14:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12466 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:14:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUVKW-0002qH-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:14:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUVKW-0002qD-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:14:28 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUVK5-0000ie-TY; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:14:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUVJa-0000hH-Kh for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:13:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12433 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUVJY-0002oh-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:13:28 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUVJY-0002oB-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:13:28 -0500 Received: from ieee.org (12-213-51-148.client.attbi.com[12.213.51.148]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc12) with SMTP id <200312111812520140084ihje>; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:12:52 +0000 Message-ID: <3FD8B316.1080102@ieee.org> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:10:30 -0600 From: Peter Lei User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: itojun@iijlab.net CC: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types References: <20031211084421.D35ED82@coconut.itojun.org> In-Reply-To: <20031211084421.D35ED82@coconut.itojun.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit itojun@iijlab.net wrote: > getnameinfo(3) specification assumes that there are only two transport > protocols - tcp and udp. when performing service name lookup > it would use "tcp" if NI_DGRAM is not specified, and "udp" when > NI_DGRAM is specified. > > now we have couple of new transport protocols coming, such as SCTP and > DCCP. how can we support service name lookup for those? i.e. > how can we tell getnameinfo(3) to use "sctp" or "dccp" for the 2nd > argument of getservbyport(3)? > > my proposal: > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > it would cause EAI_FAIL. Agree! I assume "and such" implies that NI_TCP will be defined too, which is still the default if nothing is specified in the call (for backward compatibility?) > itojun > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 13:22:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12767 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUVRu-0001Ga-JC for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:07 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBIM6po004862 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUVRu-0001GL-F4 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12728 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUVRs-0002ya-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUVRs-0002yX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUVRp-0001CS-UP; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:22:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUVR1-0001Ay-Q6 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA12692 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUVQz-0002wW-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:09 -0500 Received: from zmamail05.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.105]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUVQz-0002wS-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:09 -0500 Received: from tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.96]) by zmamail05.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD76B397; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:04 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: getnameinfo and various protocol types Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:02 -0500 Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B05122C42@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> Thread-Topic: getnameinfo and various protocol types Thread-Index: AcO/w1xga1z3mnC6QEW9KMkTSlsCmgAUCCqQ From: "Bound, Jim" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Dec 2003 18:21:04.0236 (UTC) FILETIME=[899FAAC0:01C3C013] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We should do this as addendum to 3493 for sure. /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of itojun@iijlab.net > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:44 AM > To: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: getnameinfo and various protocol types >=20 >=20 > getnameinfo(3) specification assumes that there are=20 > only two transport > protocols - tcp and udp. when performing service name lookup > it would use "tcp" if NI_DGRAM is not specified, and "udp" when > NI_DGRAM is specified. >=20 > now we have couple of new transport protocols coming,=20 > such as SCTP and > DCCP. how can we support service name lookup for those? i.e. > how can we tell getnameinfo(3) to use "sctp" or "dccp"=20 > for the 2nd > argument of getservbyport(3)? >=20 > my proposal: > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate=20 > NI_DGRAM (keep > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP,=20 > NI_DCCP and such. > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than=20 > one is specified > it would cause EAI_FAIL. >=20 > itojun >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 14:06:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14923 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUW8j-0003Ku-B5 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBBJ6LfG012823 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:21 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUW8i-0003Kk-Vj for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14896 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUW8f-0004W2-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:17 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUW8e-0004Vw-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUW8P-0003F6-GH; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:06:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUW7Y-0003EA-T2 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:05:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA14870 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:05:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUW7W-0004U5-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:05:06 -0500 Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.42.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUW7V-0004T1-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:05:06 -0500 Received: from bebop.France.Sun.COM ([129.157.174.15]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBBJ4XxA027044; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:04:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from bobo (d-mpk17-81-217.SFBay.Sun.COM [129.146.81.217]) by bebop.France.Sun.COM (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with SMTP id hBBJ4VQ06477; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:04:32 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:04:31 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Nordmark Reply-To: Erik Nordmark Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types To: itojun@iijlab.net Cc: ipv6@ietf.org In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <20031211084421.D35ED82@coconut.itojun.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > now we have couple of new transport protocols coming, such as SCTP and > DCCP. how can we support service name lookup for those? i.e. > how can we tell getnameinfo(3) to use "sctp" or "dccp" for the 2nd > argument of getservbyport(3)? > > my proposal: > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > it would cause EAI_FAIL. Since getnameinfo in theory should apply to non-Inet protocols I think it would be useful to try to abstract from NI_SCTP and NI_DCCP to something which captures the flavors/attributes of those transports. I don't know if NI_SEQPACKET is descriptive for SCTP and protocols of that flavor. I have no idea what a more abstract name would be descriptive for DCCP. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 21:09:10 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07560 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:09:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcjR-0006Zg-MJ for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:43 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC28fPD025265 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcjR-0006ZQ-Fi for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07533 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcjP-0000dn-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcjO-0000dj-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcio-0006PK-ST; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:08:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUci7-0006CN-MI for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:07:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07521 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:07:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUci5-0000cK-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:07:17 -0500 Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([219.101.47.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUci4-0000cG-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:07:16 -0500 Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id DA04D9F; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:07:14 +0900 (JST) To: Erik.Nordmark@sun.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:04:31 -0800 (PST)" References: X-Mailer: Cue version 0.6 (031125-1130/itojun) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20031212020714.DA04D9F@coconut.itojun.org> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:07:14 +0900 (JST) From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > now we have couple of new transport protocols coming, such as SCTP and > > DCCP. how can we support service name lookup for those? i.e. > > how can we tell getnameinfo(3) to use "sctp" or "dccp" for the 2nd > > argument of getservbyport(3)? > > > > my proposal: > > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > > it would cause EAI_FAIL. > > Since getnameinfo in theory should apply to non-Inet protocols > I think it would be useful to try to abstract from NI_SCTP and NI_DCCP > to something which captures the flavors/attributes of those transports. > I don't know if NI_SEQPACKET is descriptive for SCTP and protocols > of that flavor. > I have no idea what a more abstract name would be descriptive for DCCP. SCTP supports both SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM as well as SOCK_SEQPACKET. DCCP should be SOCK_DGRAM only, if i understand correctly. therefore, there's no 1-by-1 mapping from SOCK_xx to IPPROTO_xx. itojun -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 21:10:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07642 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:10:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUckp-0006nX-6f for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:10:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC2A7Ud026125 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:10:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUckp-0006nG-1l for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:10:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07601 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:10:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUckm-0000fF-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:10:04 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUckm-0000fC-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:10:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUckm-0006hg-A2; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:10:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcjy-0006db-F2 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:09:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07576 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:09:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcjw-0000eF-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:09:12 -0500 Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([219.101.47.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcjv-0000eC-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:09:11 -0500 Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 31CDB94; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:09:11 +0900 (JST) To: peter.lei@ieee.org Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:10:30 -0600" <3FD8B316.1080102@ieee.org> References: <3FD8B316.1080102@ieee.org> X-Mailer: Cue version 0.6 (031125-1130/itojun) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20031212020911.31CDB94@coconut.itojun.org> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:09:11 +0900 (JST) From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Agree! I assume "and such" implies that NI_TCP will be defined too, > which is still the default if nothing is specified in the call (for > backward compatibility?) yup, NI_TCP would have a value of 0 and is still a default. itojun -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 21:17:33 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07848 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcrZ-0007YE-Tc for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC2H5Tk029020 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcrZ-0007Xz-MX for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07802 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcrX-0000lX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:03 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcrW-0000lU-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcrW-0007TV-2w; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:17:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUcqk-0007Sr-EJ for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:16:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07793 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:16:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcqh-0000l1-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:16:11 -0500 Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([219.101.47.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUcqh-0000ky-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:16:11 -0500 Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 32DB496; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:16:11 +0900 (JST) To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.ca Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:12:02 -0500 (EST)" References: X-Mailer: Cue version 0.6 (031125-1130/itojun) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20031212021611.32DB496@coconut.itojun.org> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:16:11 +0900 (JST) From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Hi Itojun, > > my proposal: > > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > > it would cause EAI_FAIL. > In this case it would be better if getnameinfo returned EAI_BADFLAGS > rather than EAI_FAIL as it is more indicative of the problem. ok. itojun -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 11 21:27:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08070 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:27:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUd0y-0008QO-Ev for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:26:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC2QmSH032378 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:26:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUd0y-0008Q9-9Z for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:26:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08046 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:26:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUd0v-0000uE-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:26:45 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUd0v-0000uB-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:26:45 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUd0E-00087C-Gu; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:26:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUd00-00086b-5d for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:25:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA08010 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:25:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUczx-0000sy-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:25:45 -0500 Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([219.101.47.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUczw-0000sv-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 21:25:45 -0500 Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D6DF096; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:25:44 +0900 (JST) To: awhite@arc.corp.mot.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:14:35 +1100" <3FD85FAB.F707332B@motorola.com> References: <3FD85FAB.F707332B@motorola.com> X-Mailer: Cue version 0.6 (031125-1130/itojun) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20031212022544.D6DF096@coconut.itojun.org> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:25:44 +0900 (JST) From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > itojun@iijlab.net wrote: > > > > my proposal: > > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > > it would cause EAI_FAIL. > > And define NI_TCP, which is also the default if none is specified? I'd also > propose deprecating the default, to get everyone in the habit of specifying > something. deprecating the default would break source-code level backward compatibility (code written for RFC2553 would have problem) so we need to keep NI_TCP to 0 and make it a default, unfortunately. if you have any solution please let me know. itojun -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 04:17:09 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02111 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:17:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUjPc-00018m-Ji for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:16:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBC9GePi004383 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:16:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUjPb-00018Y-4l for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:16:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02082 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:16:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUjPX-0000SK-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:16:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUjPW-0000SH-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:16:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUjP1-00012Z-S8; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:16:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUjOK-00011N-VB for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:15:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA02051 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:15:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUjOI-0000QG-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:15:18 -0500 Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([219.101.47.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUjOG-0000Py-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 04:15:17 -0500 Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EA182A1; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:15:02 +0900 (JST) To: Erik.Nordmark@sun.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Dec 2003 11:07:14 +0900 (JST)" <20031212020714.DA04D9F@coconut.itojun.org> References: <20031212020714.DA04D9F@coconut.itojun.org> X-Mailer: Cue version 0.6 (031125-1130/itojun) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20031212091502.EA182A1@coconut.itojun.org> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:15:02 +0900 (JST) From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > > now we have couple of new transport protocols coming, such as SCTP and > > > DCCP. how can we support service name lookup for those? i.e. > > > how can we tell getnameinfo(3) to use "sctp" or "dccp" for the 2nd > > > argument of getservbyport(3)? > > > > > > my proposal: > > > define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep > > > it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and such. > > > these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is specified > > > it would cause EAI_FAIL. > > > > Since getnameinfo in theory should apply to non-Inet protocols > > I think it would be useful to try to abstract from NI_SCTP and NI_DCCP > > to something which captures the flavors/attributes of those transports. > > I don't know if NI_SEQPACKET is descriptive for SCTP and protocols > > of that flavor. > > I have no idea what a more abstract name would be descriptive for DCCP. > > SCTP supports both SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM as well as SOCK_SEQPACKET. > DCCP should be SOCK_DGRAM only, if i understand correctly. > > therefore, there's no 1-by-1 mapping from SOCK_xx to IPPROTO_xx. to clarify, i agree there should be some way to support non-inet protocols, however i'm not sure how service lookup works for non-inet protocols. do people have any examples (such as appletalk or whatever)? itojun -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 12:04:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16457 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:04:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqi6-0004KH-GY for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:04:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCH4ElU016625 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:04:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqi6-0004K4-By for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:04:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16418 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:04:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqi5-0001T9-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:04:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqi4-0001T6-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:04:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqgw-000474-Mg; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:03:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqga-00046J-BK for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:02:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16351 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:02:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqgX-0001Rb-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:02:37 -0500 Received: from mail-out3.apple.com ([17.254.13.22]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqgT-0001Qc-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:02:35 -0500 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBCH1wLh029485 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:01:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:01:55 -0800 Received: from [17.202.40.111] (graejo.apple.com [17.202.40.111]) by scv1.apple.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBCH1Lww001202 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:01:21 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) In-Reply-To: <20031212091502.EA182A1@coconut.itojun.org> References: <20031212020714.DA04D9F@coconut.itojun.org> <20031212091502.EA182A1@coconut.itojun.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-17-599520185; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Message-Id: From: Joshua Graessley Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:01:56 -0800 To: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --Apple-Mail-17-599520185 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Dec 12, 2003, at 1:15 AM, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >>>> now we have couple of new transport protocols coming, such as SCTP >>>> and >>>> DCCP. how can we support service name lookup for those? i.e. >>>> how can we tell getnameinfo(3) to use "sctp" or "dccp" for the 2nd >>>> argument of getservbyport(3)? >>>> >>>> my proposal: >>>> define NI_UDP as replacement of NI_DGRAM. deprecate NI_DGRAM (keep >>>> it as an alias to NI_UDP is okay). define NI_SCTP, NI_DCCP and >>>> such. >>>> these three are mutually exclusive, and if more than one is >>>> specified >>>> it would cause EAI_FAIL. >>> >>> Since getnameinfo in theory should apply to non-Inet protocols >>> I think it would be useful to try to abstract from NI_SCTP and >>> NI_DCCP >>> to something which captures the flavors/attributes of those >>> transports. >>> I don't know if NI_SEQPACKET is descriptive for SCTP and protocols >>> of that flavor. >>> I have no idea what a more abstract name would be descriptive for >>> DCCP. >> >> SCTP supports both SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM as well as SOCK_SEQPACKET. >> DCCP should be SOCK_DGRAM only, if i understand correctly. >> >> therefore, there's no 1-by-1 mapping from SOCK_xx to IPPROTO_xx. > > to clarify, i agree there should be some way to support non-inet > protocols, however i'm not sure how service lookup works for non-inet > protocols. do people have any examples (such as appletalk or > whatever)? AppleTalk is dead. Well, it's not quite dead yet, but it's getting there. AppleTalk used something called NBP (Name Binding Protocol?). There were no host names, only service names. Services were discovered by type and a service name (an instance of a service) was resolved to an AppleTalk address and port. AppleTalk didn't have the notion of different sets of port lists for different protocols. The port came right after the address. It would be sort of like layering TCP, ICMP, and all other IP protocols on top of UDP. It is unlikely anyone would ever work to support AppleTalk service name resolution through the getnameinfo API. I don't think it is useful to abstract NI_SCTP and friends to support non-inet protocols. No matter what you do with getnameinfo, writing code to try and abstract out the protocol family with the socket APIs is nearly impossible. If someone wants to support some non-inet protocol, then they can probably handle an additional lookup or use some new vendor specific value that means SCTP or ApplesSCTPLikeAppleTalkBasedProtocol. What is there other than IP/IPv6? NetBIOS...IPX...AppleTalk...OSI? They're all dying (or should be). -josh --Apple-Mail-17-599520185 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIGHDCCAtUw ggI+oAMCAQICAwqwATANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFADBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJaQTElMCMGA1UEChMcVGhh d3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcgKFB0eSkgTHRkLjEsMCoGA1UEAxMjVGhhd3RlIFBlcnNvbmFsIEZyZWVt YWlsIElzc3VpbmcgQ0EwHhcNMDMwOTA1MTgyNzUwWhcNMDQwOTA0MTgyNzUwWjBGMR8wHQYDVQQD ExZUaGF3dGUgRnJlZW1haWwgTWVtYmVyMSMwIQYJKoZIhvcNAQkBFhRqZ3JhZXNzbGV5QGFwcGxl LmNvbTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAM7EXVgIo1XLZWghTrlD+Lyvh01y IH3rl7Q5SYYMwX2EQytFr3XZeubyuBy5kV3IjrDiI2R2siVX+pLCDsy7sWccyqCkqusGFRyiDyRI xb6ydueBxrAz26AfavFWmAZp+mdPt4qbXmlhoIwbb5UsqxfgO1mpFMB6Xh/FpS0ZkLMkrsYB0KFN 1STxdwNpZnlVNS7B/MlmaevcC59VzmPn6m2Ud7RTVqxYE49AYqnNDo9f/byj+RwKGjFpD+mjut8I kOpL2J0VM8KcCw9RZS3mZSTIyLYxVEgqLlrcyxo5Bwv0hde+CCYN2ZprMz3D9vymHmpGyhaJsnRe o5oNETuX2nUCAwEAAaMxMC8wHwYDVR0RBBgwFoEUamdyYWVzc2xleUBhcHBsZS5jb20wDAYDVR0T AQH/BAIwADANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQQFAAOBgQBVU7HfJ6R7f/4YqQ8iEa9pqZX9A9j2MU67D43nWolj XRdeQGxCkCWOrJLG7UgtiUvas7B9mZhRYYj0KrI3xkSX+N3G/IXDHo6OLH2rJY/43PRMj8CbWkP3 rPLTBZg2guU7a2wkgRig1heEaUBinl9h5TxfDosmHXKtiWVUFuVTXDCCAz8wggKooAMCAQICAQ0w DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgdExCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMRUwEwYDVQQIEwxXZXN0ZXJuIENhcGUxEjAQ BgNVBAcTCUNhcGUgVG93bjEaMBgGA1UEChMRVGhhd3RlIENvbnN1bHRpbmcxKDAmBgNVBAsTH0Nl cnRpZmljYXRpb24gU2VydmljZXMgRGl2aXNpb24xJDAiBgNVBAMTG1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25hbCBG cmVlbWFpbCBDQTErMCkGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYccGVyc29uYWwtZnJlZW1haWxAdGhhd3RlLmNvbTAe Fw0wMzA3MTcwMDAwMDBaFw0xMzA3MTYyMzU5NTlaMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxU aGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJl ZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQTCBnzANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOBjQAwgYkCgYEAxKY8VXNV+065ypla HmjAdQRwnd/p/6Me7L3N9VvyGna9fww6YfK/Uc4B1OVQCjDXAmNaLIkVcI7dyfArhVqqP3FWy688 Cwfn8R+RNiQqE88r1fOCdz0Dviv+uxg+B79AgAJk16emu59l0cUqVIUPSAR/p7bRPGEEQB5kGXJg t/sCAwEAAaOBlDCBkTASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMEMGA1UdHwQ8MDowOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6 Ly9jcmwudGhhd3RlLmNvbS9UaGF3dGVQZXJzb25hbEZyZWVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMAsGA1UdDwQEAwIB BjApBgNVHREEIjAgpB4wHDEaMBgGA1UEAxMRUHJpdmF0ZUxhYmVsMi0xMzgwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEF BQADgYEASIzRUIPqCy7MDaNmrGcPf6+svsIXoUOWlJ1/TCG4+DYfqi2fNi/A9BxQIJNwPP2t4WFi w9k6GX6EsZkbAMUaC4J0niVQlGLH2ydxVyWN3amcOY6MIE9lX5Xa9/eH1sYITq726jTlEBpbNU13 41YheILcIRk13iSx0x1G/11fZU8xggLnMIIC4wIBATBpMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlpBMSUwIwYDVQQK ExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3dGUgUGVyc29uYWwg RnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIDCrABMAkGBSsOAwIaBQCgggFTMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkq hkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcNAQkFMQ8XDTAzMTIxMjE3MDE1N1owIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFCOr Vq4XGFdB0SZWW1qd9tP6vh8vMHgGCSsGAQQBgjcQBDFrMGkwYjELMAkGA1UEBhMCWkExJTAjBgNV BAoTHFRoYXd0ZSBDb25zdWx0aW5nIChQdHkpIEx0ZC4xLDAqBgNVBAMTI1RoYXd0ZSBQZXJzb25h bCBGcmVlbWFpbCBJc3N1aW5nIENBAgMKsAEwegYLKoZIhvcNAQkQAgsxa6BpMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYT AlpBMSUwIwYDVQQKExxUaGF3dGUgQ29uc3VsdGluZyAoUHR5KSBMdGQuMSwwKgYDVQQDEyNUaGF3 dGUgUGVyc29uYWwgRnJlZW1haWwgSXNzdWluZyBDQQIDCrABMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIBAEtF lg8rQCgI0sM1HH17KXar/eXeR/sj6GjYOINQeNcOWWvrKWpyWFOpW73lXykLowKb4rcjnyqjeL0Z kPAKd9gjMV6Fo2bb1n+dJtNPnBViiTI+FIa/rJxyprfKyvUV+uG+B627iqd4ztEzN5lAPUEerT/A ZeWEQuhZMM7yOVdcXys9vp2cBuYAcYbHNHVy+SEc1ByUIkR7z9P8P3GdbuteFxp/oU/pv57K3dhN ooa9UJYxYJOF0HehDLYcI49t+E4hFJLmuJehtXk3lN5nSuH1CWJgeN0n14NVkRJNDLz43TYeD76f g1ExChe+tMs8WgoUb837hnR+fRTId7x7+YgAAAAAAAA= --Apple-Mail-17-599520185-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 12:20:44 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17285 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:20:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqxc-0005JJ-Cl for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:20:17 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCHKGqi020324 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:20:16 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqxa-0005H8-TL for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:20:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17259 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:20:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqxZ-000211-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:20:13 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqxZ-00020y-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:20:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqxU-0005F9-0N; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:20:08 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUqwb-0005DW-Kd for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:19:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17217 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:19:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqwa-0001zF-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:19:12 -0500 Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.42.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUqwZ-0001yr-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:19:11 -0500 Received: from bebop.France.Sun.COM ([129.157.174.15]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBCHId0H015605; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:18:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from lillen (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by bebop.France.Sun.COM (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with SMTP id hBCHIaQ06647; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:18:37 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:16:25 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Nordmark Reply-To: Erik Nordmark Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino Cc: Erik.Nordmark@sun.com, ipv6@ietf.org In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <20031212020714.DA04D9F@coconut.itojun.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > SCTP supports both SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM as well as SOCK_SEQPACKET. SOCK_STREAM sounds odd since SCTP doesn't provide a byte stream service - it provides a service that has explicit message boundaries. > DCCP should be SOCK_DGRAM only, if i understand correctly. Also odd; you mean socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) might provide a DCCP socket on systems that support DCCP? Or IPPROTO_DCCP would need to be explicitly specified? But ignoring the above oddities: > therefore, there's no 1-by-1 mapping from SOCK_xx to IPPROTO_xx. > to clarify, i agree there should be some way to support non-inet > protocols, however i'm not sure how service lookup works for non-inet > protocols. do people have any examples (such as appletalk or whatever)? I think that is what we need to figure out. Problem is that the socket() call takes both a type and a protocol argument and getnameinfo() has a single NI_DGRAM which implementations map to the single protocol argument in getservbyport(). But this reminds me; doesn't SCTP use the same port number space as TCP? Will DCCP use the same port number space as either TCP or UDP? The getnameinfo() man page seems to claim that NI_DGRAM is only needed because there are a few ports which are used for different protocols in UDP and TCP: A fifth flag bit, NI_DGRAM, specifies that the service is a datagram service, and causes getservbyport(3SOCKET) to be called with a second argument of "udp" instead of the default "tcp". This is required for the few ports (for example, 512-514) that have different services for UDP and TCP. If this isn't going to be an issue for SCTP or DCCP maybe we don't need to change anything. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 14:41:05 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21642 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:41:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUt9R-0004Mg-3L for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:40:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBCJebSe016772 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:40:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUt9Q-0004MR-V4 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:40:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21602 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:40:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUt9O-0005RW-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:40:34 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUt9O-0005RT-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:40:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUt8u-0004Ce-9b; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:40:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AUt8Z-0004Bx-Si for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:39:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA21562 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:39:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUt8W-0005PV-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:39:40 -0500 Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([219.101.47.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AUt8W-0005PR-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:39:40 -0500 Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CB107A5; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:39:37 +0900 (JST) To: Erik.Nordmark@sun.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Dec 2003 09:16:25 -0800 (PST)" References: X-Mailer: Cue version 0.6 (031125-1130/itojun) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20031212193937.CB107A5@coconut.itojun.org> Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:39:37 +0900 (JST) From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > SCTP supports both SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM as well as SOCK_SEQPACKET. > > SOCK_STREAM sounds odd since SCTP doesn't provide a byte stream service - it > provides a service that has explicit message boundaries. SCTP do provide three models (SOCK_xx). draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-07.txt talks about it more (it talks about SOCK_SEQPACKET and SOCK_STREAM only, but the reference implementation from rrs@cisco on KAME do provide SOCK_DGRAM too). > > DCCP should be SOCK_DGRAM only, if i understand correctly. > > Also odd; you mean socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) might provide a DCCP > socket on systems that support DCCP? Or IPPROTO_DCCP would need to > be explicitly specified? could be, but for backward compatibility's sake i guess 0 would give you IPPROTO_UDP socket. > > therefore, there's no 1-by-1 mapping from SOCK_xx to IPPROTO_xx. > > > to clarify, i agree there should be some way to support non-inet > > protocols, however i'm not sure how service lookup works for non-inet > > protocols. do people have any examples (such as appletalk or whatever)? > > I think that is what we need to figure out. > > Problem is that the socket() call takes both a type and a protocol argument > and getnameinfo() has a single NI_DGRAM which implementations map to > the single protocol argument in getservbyport(). > > But this reminds me; doesn't SCTP use the same port number space as TCP? basically the same space, but they do have separate entries on /etc/services and http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers. for instance, http is only defined for http/tcp and http/udp at this point of time. only a limited number of sctp services are defined on IANA assignment page. and since we have "foo/sctp" on /etc/services, we need to pass "sctp" as 2nd arg to getservbyport(3). > Will DCCP use the same port number space as either TCP or UDP? IANA assignment page has no entry for dccp yet, so i'm not sure. > The getnameinfo() man page seems to claim that NI_DGRAM is only needed > because there are a few ports which are used for different protocols in UDP > and TCP: > > A fifth flag bit, NI_DGRAM, specifies that the service is a > datagram service, and causes getservbyport(3SOCKET) to be > called with a second argument of "udp" instead of the > default "tcp". This is required for the few ports (for > example, 512-514) that have different services for UDP and > TCP. > > If this isn't going to be an issue for SCTP or DCCP maybe we don't > need to change anything. it is going to be an issue. in fact, it already is. itojun -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 12 23:16:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12068 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:16:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV1C9-0001SS-QF for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:15:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBD4FvrX005605 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:15:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV1C9-0001SK-FQ for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:15:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12029 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:15:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV1C6-0002NV-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:15:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV1Bj-0002Lt-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:15:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV1AK-0001GU-8d; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:14:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AV1A0-0001Fz-TB for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:13:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA11944 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:13:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV19y-0002Ks-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:13:42 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AV19x-0002KT-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:13:41 -0500 Received: from ieee.org (12-213-51-148.client.attbi.com[12.213.51.148]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <20031213041311013006r4mme>; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:13:11 +0000 Message-ID: <3FDA9143.8080408@ieee.org> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:10:43 -0600 From: Peter Lei User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino , Erik.Nordmark@sun.com CC: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types References: <20031212193937.CB107A5@coconut.itojun.org> In-Reply-To: <20031212193937.CB107A5@coconut.itojun.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: >>> SCTP supports both SOCK_DGRAM, SOCK_STREAM as well as SOCK_SEQPACKET. >> >>SOCK_STREAM sounds odd since SCTP doesn't provide a byte stream service - it >>provides a service that has explicit message boundaries. > > > SCTP do provide three models (SOCK_xx). > draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpsocket-07.txt talks about it more (it talks about > SOCK_SEQPACKET and SOCK_STREAM only, but the reference implementation > from rrs@cisco on KAME do provide SOCK_DGRAM too). Yes, our reference implementation on KAME originally used SOCK_DGRAM for the one-to-many API... that is technically incorrect since the SCTP socket API calls out SOCK_SEQPACKET and SOCK_STREAM; I'm sure we'll remove the SOCK_DGRAM use at some point. The SOCK_STREAM use in the API draft is for backward compatibility to TCP and a "migration" path for existing applications: ie. change socket(AF_INET{6}, SOCK_STREAM, 0) to socket(AF_INET{6}, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_SCTP) and you will get an "equivalent" functionality (from the application perspective at the sockets interface) over SCTP. >>> DCCP should be SOCK_DGRAM only, if i understand correctly. >> >>Also odd; you mean socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) might provide a DCCP >>socket on systems that support DCCP? Or IPPROTO_DCCP would need to >>be explicitly specified? > > > could be, but for backward compatibility's sake i guess 0 would give > you IPPROTO_UDP socket. > > >>> therefore, there's no 1-by-1 mapping from SOCK_xx to IPPROTO_xx. >> >>> to clarify, i agree there should be some way to support non-inet >>> protocols, however i'm not sure how service lookup works for non-inet >>> protocols. do people have any examples (such as appletalk or whatever)? >> >>I think that is what we need to figure out. >> >>Problem is that the socket() call takes both a type and a protocol argument >>and getnameinfo() has a single NI_DGRAM which implementations map to >>the single protocol argument in getservbyport(). >> >>But this reminds me; doesn't SCTP use the same port number space as TCP? > > > basically the same space, but they do have separate entries on > /etc/services and http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers. > for instance, http is only defined for http/tcp and http/udp at this > point of time. only a limited number of sctp services are defined on > IANA assignment page. > > and since we have "foo/sctp" on /etc/services, we need to pass > "sctp" as 2nd arg to getservbyport(3). Actualy, RFC2960 explictily states that "All current TCP ports shall be automatically reserved in the SCTP port address space." in the IANA considerations section. --peter >>Will DCCP use the same port number space as either TCP or UDP? > > > IANA assignment page has no entry for dccp yet, so i'm not sure. > > >>The getnameinfo() man page seems to claim that NI_DGRAM is only needed >>because there are a few ports which are used for different protocols in UDP >>and TCP: >> >> A fifth flag bit, NI_DGRAM, specifies that the service is a >> datagram service, and causes getservbyport(3SOCKET) to be >> called with a second argument of "udp" instead of the >> default "tcp". This is required for the few ports (for >> example, 512-514) that have different services for UDP and >> TCP. >> >>If this isn't going to be an issue for SCTP or DCCP maybe we don't >>need to change anything. > > > it is going to be an issue. in fact, it already is. > > itojun > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 13:08:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09414 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:08:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVEBF-00055a-4C for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:07:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBDI7q28019547 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:07:52 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVEBE-000554-1S for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:07:52 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09384 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:07:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVEBC-00064v-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:07:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVEBB-00064e-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:07:49 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVEAQ-0004lp-V6; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:07:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVEA6-0004kR-PB for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:06:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09373 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:06:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVEA4-00063W-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:06:40 -0500 Received: from web80506.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.79.76]) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVEA4-00063T-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:06:40 -0500 Message-ID: <20031213180610.12286.qmail@web80506.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [63.197.18.101] by web80506.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:06:10 PST Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 10:06:10 -0800 (PST) From: Fred Templin Subject: Re: names for non-global addresses To: Keith Moore Cc: moore@cs.utk.edu, bob.hinden@nokia.com, brc@zurich.ibm.com, ipv6@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <20031204140646.088e4c3d.moore@cs.utk.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-878411157-1071338770=:11128" Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --0-878411157-1071338770=:11128 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Keith, You are just plain wrong; read the Mirriam-Webster definitions for terms like "organization", "enterprise", etc. then read: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-04.txt and you will see that "organizational scope" is the logical choice. Fred osprey67@yahoo.com Keith Moore wrote: > I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative > of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is > even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of > "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all. that's completely ridiculous. these addresses are not specific to an organization at all. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- --0-878411157-1071338770=:11128 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Keith,
 
You are just plain wrong; read the Mirriam-Webster definitions
for terms like "organization", "enterprise", etc. then read:
 
 
and you will see that "organizational scope" is the logical choice.
 
Fred
osprey67@yahoo.com

Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu> wrote:
> I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative
> of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is
> even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of
> "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all.

that's completely ridiculous. these addresses are not specific to an
organization at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--0-878411157-1071338770=:11128-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 13 13:44:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10060 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVEkQ-0006G5-In for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:19 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBDIiEKF024051 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:14 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVEkP-0006Fp-Fh for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10006 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVEkN-0006Uj-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVEkN-0006Ug-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:11 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVEkF-0006Az-H5; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVEje-0006AH-62 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09990 for ; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVEjc-0006UJ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:24 -0500 Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([160.36.56.50]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVEjb-0006UG-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:23 -0500 Received: from localhost (klutz.cs.utk.edu [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC588AFCC5; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from klutz.cs.utk.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (klutz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 17602-04; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from [192.168.0.4] (user-119b1dm.biz.mindspring.com [66.149.133.182]) by smtp.cs.utk.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFEDAFC9B; Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:43:22 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20031213180610.12286.qmail@web80506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20031213180610.12286.qmail@web80506.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <561482E4-2D9C-11D8-97F7-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Keith Moore , bob.hinden@nokia.com, brc@zurich.ibm.com, ipv6@ietf.org From: Keith Moore Subject: Re: names for non-global addresses Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:44:08 -0500 To: Fred Templin X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new and ClamAV at cs.utk.edu Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fred, you're working from false premises, so your conclusions are invalid. Keith > Keith, > =A0 > You are just plain wrong; read the Mirriam-Webster definitions > for terms like "organization", "enterprise", etc. then read: > =A0 > =A0http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-templin-ipv6-=20 > localcomm-04.txt > =A0 > and you will see that "organizational scope" is the logical choice. > =A0 > Fred > osprey67@yahoo.com > > Keith Moore wrote: > > I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative > > of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is > > even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of > > "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all. > > that's completely ridiculous. these addresses are not specific to an > organization at all. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 00:03:14 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22200 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:03:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVOP0-0006Y8-QO for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:47 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBE52ksu025170 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:46 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVOP0-0006Xt-Gz for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22161 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVOOy-0005mi-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:44 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVOOx-0005me-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVOOI-0006SH-03; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:02:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVONM-0006QX-Lv for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:01:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22133 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:01:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVONK-0005kl-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:01:02 -0500 Received: from dsl092-066-068.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.66.68] helo=cyteen.hactrn.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVONJ-0005iP-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:01:02 -0500 Received: from hactrn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cyteen.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D3E5236 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:00:31 -0500 (EST) To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Weekly posting summary for ipv6@ietf.org From: Rob Austein Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:00:30 -0500 Message-Id: <20031214050031.1D3E5236@cyteen.hactrn.net> Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 18.75% | 6 | 11.98% | 23126 | itojun@itojun.org 3.12% | 1 | 16.44% | 31742 | bob.hinden@nokia.com 6.25% | 2 | 9.39% | 18131 | dthaler@windows.microsoft.com 6.25% | 2 | 5.71% | 11024 | john.loughney@nokia.com 6.25% | 2 | 5.60% | 10815 | peter.lei@ieee.org 6.25% | 2 | 5.22% | 10083 | lear@cisco.com 6.25% | 2 | 4.41% | 8513 | erik.nordmark@sun.com 3.12% | 1 | 6.03% | 11645 | shawn.routhier@windriver.com 3.12% | 1 | 4.86% | 9380 | jgraessley@apple.com 3.12% | 1 | 3.65% | 7051 | tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk 3.12% | 1 | 2.79% | 5393 | osprey67@yahoo.com 3.12% | 1 | 2.70% | 5215 | internet-drafts@ietf.org 3.12% | 1 | 2.58% | 4981 | brc@zurich.ibm.com 3.12% | 1 | 2.32% | 4480 | jim.bound@hp.com 3.12% | 1 | 2.26% | 4360 | moore@cs.utk.edu 3.12% | 1 | 2.22% | 4294 | sra+ipng@hactrn.net 3.12% | 1 | 2.22% | 4281 | both@bothom.de 3.12% | 1 | 2.12% | 4085 | ipng@uni-muenster.de 3.12% | 1 | 2.00% | 3855 | suresh.krishnan@ericsson.ca 3.12% | 1 | 1.95% | 3764 | alain.durand@sun.com 3.12% | 1 | 1.79% | 3464 | andrew.e.white@motorola.com 3.12% | 1 | 1.78% | 3429 | itojun@iijlab.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 32 |100.00% | 193111 | Total Grunchweather Associates provides this automatic summary on an at-whim basis at the request of the IPv6 WG chairs. Your mileage may vary. We decline responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. If this script produces broken output, you get to keep both pieces. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 10:07:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14773 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:07:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXpQ-0001Ij-V2 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:06:41 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEF6eR7004998 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:06:40 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXpQ-0001IX-PC for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:06:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14695 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:06:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXpO-0005x3-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:06:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXpO-0005x0-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:06:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXoq-0001Bp-7s; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:06:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXoL-00019I-St for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14591 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXoJ-0005wl-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:31 -0500 Received: from [202.97.224.98] (helo=mail.hl.cn) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXns-0005wJ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:31 -0500 Received: from mail.hl.cn([127.0.0.1]) by mail.hl.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.6) with SMTP id jm03fdca77a; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:53:15 +0800 Received: from asgard.ietf.org([132.151.6.40]) by mail.hl.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.6) with SMTP id jm283fd7cd86; Thr, 11 Dec 2003 04:52:37 +0800 Received: from majordomo by asgard.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.14) id 1AUB9F-0005lq-Jt for ietf-announce-list@asgard.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:41:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([10.27.2.28]) by asgard.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AUB86-0005ju-GJ for all-ietf@asgard.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:18 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15279; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312102040.PAA15279@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ipv6@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:16 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: owner-ietf-announce@ietf.org X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Node Requirements Author(s) : J. Loughney Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2003-12-10 This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-10160026.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-10160026.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 14 10:11:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15282 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:11:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXtr-00022p-Pw for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:11:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBEFBF68007853 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:11:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXtq-00022a-LY for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:11:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15210 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:11:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXto-00063E-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:11:12 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXto-00063B-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:11:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXtg-0001uB-3K; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:11:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXsq-0001tC-62 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:10:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA15102 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXso-000629-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:10:10 -0500 Received: from argc.paf.se ([195.66.31.71] helo=paf.se) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXsk-000622-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:10:07 -0500 Received: by paf.se (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.1) with PIPE id 1274624; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:13:29 +0100 Received: from localhost [127.0.0.1] by argc.paf.se with SpamAssassin (2.55 1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp); Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:13:25 +0100 From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:16 -0500 Message-Id: <200312102040.PAA15279@ietf.org> X-Spam-Flag: YES X-Spam-Status: Yes, hits=5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_10,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART,NO_REAL_NAME,RCVD_IN_DSBL, RCVD_IN_NJABL,RCVD_IN_RFCI,TO_MALFORMED,X_NJABL_OPEN_PROXY version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: ***** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_3FDC7E15.A654056D" Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------------=_3FDC7E15.A654056D Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit This mail is probably spam. The original message has been attached along with this report, so you can recognize or block similar unwanted mail in future. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. Content preview: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Node Requirements Author(s) : J. Loughney Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2003-12-10 [...] Content analysis details: (5.20 points, 5 required) NO_REAL_NAME (1.1 points) From: does not include a real name TO_MALFORMED (1.6 points) To: has a malformed address BAYES_10 (-4.7 points) BODY: Bayesian classifier says spam probability is 10 to 20% [score: 0.1027] RCVD_IN_NJABL (0.8 points) RBL: Received via a relay in dnsbl.njabl.org [RBL check: found 98.224.97.202.dnsbl.njabl.org.] RCVD_IN_RFCI (1.1 points) RBL: Received via a relay in ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org [RBL check: found 98.224.97.202.ipwhois.rfc-ignorant.org., type: 127.0.0.6] X_NJABL_OPEN_PROXY (0.8 points) RBL: NJABL: sender is proxy/relay/formmail/spam-source RCVD_IN_DSBL (4.3 points) RBL: Received via a relay in list.dsbl.org [RBL check: found 98.224.97.202.list.dsbl.org.] MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART (0.2 points) Spam tool pattern in MIME boundary The original message did not contain plain text, and may be unsafe to open with some email clients; in particular, it may contain a virus, or confirm that your address can receive spam. If you wish to view it, it may be safer to save it to a file and open it with an editor. ------------=_3FDC7E15.A654056D Content-Type: message/rfc822; x-spam-type=original Content-Description: original message before SpamAssassin Content-Disposition: attachment Return-Path: Envelope-To: eva@tibbir.se,anders@lowinger.se X-Spam-Status: SpamAssassin Failed Received: from [132.151.6.22] (HELO optimus.ietf.org) by paf.se (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1) with ESMTP id 1274629; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 16:12:52 +0100 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXoo-0001BQ-TL; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:06:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVXoL-00019I-St for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA14591 for ; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXoJ-0005wl-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:31 -0500 Received: from [202.97.224.98] (helo=mail.hl.cn) by ietf-mx with smtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVXns-0005wJ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 10:05:31 -0500 Received: from mail.hl.cn([127.0.0.1]) by mail.hl.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.6) with SMTP id jm03fdca77a; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:53:15 +0800 Received: from asgard.ietf.org([132.151.6.40]) by mail.hl.cn(AIMC 2.9.5.6) with SMTP id jm283fd7cd86; Thr, 11 Dec 2003 04:52:37 +0800 Received: from majordomo by asgard.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.14) id 1AUB9F-0005lq-Jt for ietf-announce-list@asgard.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:41:29 -0500 Received: from ietf.org ([10.27.2.28]) by asgard.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AUB86-0005ju-GJ for all-ietf@asgard.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:18 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15279; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312102040.PAA15279@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ipv6@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:40:16 -0500 Precedence: bulk X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: owner-ietf-announce@ietf.org X-AIMC-AUTH: (null) X-AIMC-MAILFROM: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Node Requirements Author(s) : J. Loughney Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2003-12-10 This document defines requirements for IPv6 nodes. It is expected that IPv6 will be deployed in a wide range of devices and situations. Specifying the requirements for IPv6 nodes allows IPv6 to function well and interoperate in a large number of situations and deployments. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-10160026.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-10160026.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------=_3FDC7E15.A654056D-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 02:53:45 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA28417 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:53:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVnXY-0007d6-2c for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:53:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBF7rFkv029322 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:53:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVnXU-0007cm-Mq for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:53:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA28373 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:53:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVnXQ-0006YO-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:53:09 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVnLv-00064L-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:41:15 -0500 Received: from [132.151.6.22] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AVnBF-0006AC-NW for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:30:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVnB7-00062b-A8; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:30:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVnAp-0005yS-56 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:29:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA27024 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:29:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVnAl-0005lv-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:29:43 -0500 Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([219.101.47.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVnAl-0005ls-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 02:29:43 -0500 Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 986EC93; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:43 +0900 (JST) To: hinden@iprg.nokia.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:26:40 +0900 (JST)" <20031215072640.07E70A0@coconut.itojun.org> References: <20031215072640.07E70A0@coconut.itojun.org> X-Mailer: Cue version 0.6 (031125-1130/itojun) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20031215072943.986EC93@coconut.itojun.org> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:43 +0900 (JST) From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > as an IAB i was asked to comment on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt, > so here it is. happy holidays. one more ;-) itojun MINOR ===== deering@cisco.com is no longer valid, so you may want to remove it from the draft. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 12:01:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16718 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:01:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVw5u-000454-Tm for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:01:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFH1ING015680 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:01:18 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVw5u-00044p-1N for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:01:18 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16691 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:01:15 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVw5s-0000ju-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:01:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVw5r-0000jn-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:01:16 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVw3i-0003iY-TT; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:59:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVw2w-0003hk-Al for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:58:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA16567 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:58:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVw2v-0000hL-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:58:13 -0500 Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.42.14]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVw2u-0000gJ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:58:12 -0500 Received: from bebop.France.Sun.COM ([129.157.174.15]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBFGvb0H012695; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:57:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from bobo (punchin-nordmark.SFBay.Sun.COM [192.9.61.11]) by bebop.France.Sun.COM (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with SMTP id hBFGvOQ26496; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 17:57:25 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:57:22 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Nordmark Reply-To: Erik Nordmark Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types To: Peter Lei Cc: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino , Erik.Nordmark@sun.com, ipv6@ietf.org In-Reply-To: "Your message with ID" <3FDA9143.8080408@ieee.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > Actualy, RFC2960 explictily states that "All current TCP ports shall be > automatically reserved in the SCTP port address space." in the IANA > considerations section. That was what I remebered. If this indeed means that there will not be any conflicting usage in the future (which the above text doesn't explicitly say) then I think we at least don't have the problem of getservbyport() returning different results for SCTP and TCP. Don't know how significant the problem is that a given port (e.g., 80) might not be defined for SCTP, even though the port number is reserved, so that getservbyport() for SCTP should fail and getservbyport() for TCP would return a service string. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 13:14:05 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18908 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:14:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVxDr-0007PT-2y for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:38 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFIDYPl028477 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVxDq-0007PE-Al for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18871 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVxDo-0001u0-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:32 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVxDo-0001tw-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:32 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVxDL-0007JP-B0; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:13:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AVxCo-0007In-RW for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:12:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA18816 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:12:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVxCm-0001t6-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:12:29 -0500 Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com ([205.226.5.69]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AVxCm-0001sd-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:12:28 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id hBFIBpj18766; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:11:51 -0800 X-mProtect: <200312151811> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection Received: from ftemplin.iprg.nokia.com (205.226.2.67, claiming to be "iprg.nokia.com") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpdJCVV4W; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:11:50 PST Message-ID: <3FDDF963.80704@iprg.nokia.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:11:47 -0800 From: Fred Templin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Moore CC: Fred Templin , bob.hinden@nokia.com, brc@zurich.ibm.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: names for non-global addresses References: <20031213180610.12286.qmail@web80506.mail.yahoo.com> <561482E4-2D9C-11D8-97F7-000393DB5366@cs.utk.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The premises I'm working from are all in here: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-04.txt If you think there is something false about them, you'll have to tell us all by way of commenting on the draft. Thanks - Fred ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com Keith Moore wrote: > Fred, > > you're working from false premises, so your conclusions are invalid. > > Keith > > >> Keith, >> >> You are just plain wrong; read the Mirriam-Webster definitions >> for terms like "organization", "enterprise", etc. then read: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-templin-ipv6- >> localcomm-04.txt >> >> and you will see that "organizational scope" is the logical choice. >> >> Fred >> osprey67@yahoo.com >> >> Keith Moore wrote: >> > I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative >> > of "private" would be good but a suggestion we heard earlier is >> > even better. I recall seeing some time back the suggestion of >> > "Organizational Addresses", and I think this fits best of all. >> >> that's completely ridiculous. these addresses are not specific to an >> organization at all. >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 16:30:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01286 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:30:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW0Ha-0008CQ-Qe for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBFLTcBN031512 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW0Ha-0008CB-FH for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01257 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW0HY-0001lh-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW0HX-0001lZ-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:36 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW0HX-0001lV-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:35 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW0Gz-00085r-NL; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:29:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW0G5-00085H-9P for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:28:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA01125 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:27:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW0Fy-0001e7-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:27:58 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW0Fx-0001dr-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:27:58 -0500 Received: from coconut.itojun.org ([219.101.47.130]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW0Fw-0001dg-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 16:27:56 -0500 Received: by coconut.itojun.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EDE10A6; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:27:55 +0900 (JST) To: Erik.Nordmark@sun.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Cc: rrs@cisco.com Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:57:22 -0800 (PST)" References: X-Mailer: Cue version 0.6 (031125-1130/itojun) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <20031215212755.EDE10A6@coconut.itojun.org> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 06:27:55 +0900 (JST) From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 > > Actualy, RFC2960 explictily states that "All current TCP ports shall be > > automatically reserved in the SCTP port address space." in the IANA > > considerations section. > > That was what I remebered. If this indeed means that there will not > be any conflicting usage in the future (which the above text doesn't > explicitly say) then I think we at least don't have the problem > of getservbyport() returning different results for SCTP and TCP. > > Don't know how significant the problem is that a given port (e.g., 80) > might not be defined for SCTP, even though the port number is > reserved, so that getservbyport() for SCTP should > fail and getservbyport() for TCP would return a service string. (it may not be a IPv6 question, but unix API question) based on the RFC2960 statement, what should we do about getservbyport 2nd argument for SCTP connection, and/or /etc/services entries? my guess is that (1) we need to put "foo/sctp" explicitly into /etc/services and (2) 2nd argument must be "sctp". this is based on observation from tcp/udp case (even if there's the same service - such as http - on the same port, we put separate entries into /etc/services) itojun -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 20:39:08 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11125 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:39:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW4AY-0000Qp-Sw for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:38:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBG1ccau001647 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:38:38 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW4AX-0000QP-Ks for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:38:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11085 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:38:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW4AV-0002KT-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:38:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW4AU-0002KL-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:38:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW4AU-0002KI-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:38:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW4A0-0000Ht-A7; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:38:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW49J-0000BV-Rh for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:37:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA10993 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:37:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW49H-0002Fz-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:37:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW49G-0002Fr-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:37:19 -0500 Received: from motgate8.mot.com ([129.188.136.8]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW49G-0002Fm-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:37:18 -0500 Received: from il06exr03.mot.com (il06exr03.mot.com [129.188.137.133]) by motgate8.mot.com (Motorola/Motgate3) with ESMTP id hBG1bI5D003959 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 18:37:18 -0700 (MST) Received: from homer.arc.corp.mot.com (homer.arc.corp.mot.com [10.238.80.38]) by il06exr03.mot.com (Motorola/il06exr03) with ESMTP id hBG1bEoT031831 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:37:16 -0600 Received: from motorola.com (aewhite.arc.corp.mot.com [10.238.80.239]) by homer.arc.corp.mot.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBG1bEoF029298 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:37:14 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDE61C9.84D3D217@motorola.com> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 12:37:13 +1100 From: Andrew White Reply-To: awhite@arc.corp.mot.com Organization: Motorola Australia Research Centre X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types References: <3FD85FAB.F707332B@motorola.com> <20031212022544.D6DF096@coconut.itojun.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote: > > > And define NI_TCP, which is also the default if none is specified? > > I'd also propose deprecating the default, to get everyone in the habit > > of specifying something. > > deprecating the default would break source-code level backward > compatibility (code written for RFC2553 would have problem) so we > need to keep NI_TCP to 0 and make it a default, unfortunately. > if you have any solution please let me know. Techically, deprecating would break nothing, since it changes the status to "supported but discouraged". The goal is to get programmers into the habit of specifying something, not to actually remove the functionality. The intent is not to actually take the 2nd step of removing the deprecation, just discourage the usage. -- Andrew White -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 15 20:58:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11505 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW4TS-00017m-Nk for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBG1wAeq004313 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:10 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW4TS-00017S-6B for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:10 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11460 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW4TP-0002l2-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW4TO-0002kv-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW4TO-0002ks-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:06 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW4TL-00013T-7v; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AW4Sl-00012v-2r for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:57:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA11441 for ; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:57:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW4Si-0002j3-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:57:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AW4Sh-0002iw-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:57:24 -0500 Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp ([202.249.10.124]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AW4Sh-0002ir-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:57:23 -0500 Received: from ocean.jinmei.org (unknown [2001:200:0:8002:f589:4cb2:b274:5f7]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA731525D; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:57:22 +0900 (JST) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:57:23 +0900 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Fred Templin Cc: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino , hinden@iprg.nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt In-Reply-To: <3FDDF9BC.8040401@iprg.nokia.com> References: <20031215072640.07E70A0@coconut.itojun.org> <20031215072943.986EC93@coconut.itojun.org> <3FDDF9BC.8040401@iprg.nokia.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:13:16 -0800, >>>>> Fred Templin said: > Last I heard, Steve Deering had gone walkabout - but > surely, he must have a new e-mail address by now? Perhaps the best way is that someone who can contact Steve personally asks him explicitly, but jus FYI: When I updated the scope-arch draft in which Steve is a co-author, I contacted him personally and asked how we should update the author information for him. The answer was: - keep the Cisco address listed with his name, but just delete the Phone, Fax, and Email lines. That way, Cisco will continue to get the credit (or blame) for the work he did while employed by them, and anyone who wants to ask questions about the document will have to contact one of the other author(s). - he certainly did NOT want to list his new email address, if any, to hide the address from spammers. and I simply followed his advice. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 05:53:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10535 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:53:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWCoy-0004Jk-Sw for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:52:57 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGAquCT016597 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:52:56 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWCox-0004Jc-HX for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:52:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10502 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:52:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWCot-0004Xb-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:52:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWCos-0004XO-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:52:51 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWCos-0004XG-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:52:50 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWCo7-0004E4-7f; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:52:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWCnR-0004Cl-UX for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:51:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA10475 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:51:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWCnO-0004V6-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:51:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWCnN-0004Uz-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:51:17 -0500 Received: from mtagate3.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.152]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWCnN-0004UI-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 05:51:17 -0500 Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196] (may be forged)) by mtagate3.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBGAoln0143972; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 10:50:47 GMT Received: from collon.zurich.ibm.com (collon.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.143]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id hBGAokKA261110; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:50:47 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-145-240-47.de.ibm.com [9.145.240.47]) by collon.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA33386; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:50:42 +0100 Message-ID: <3FDEE34B.E36C19B9@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:49:47 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipv6@ietf.org CC: itojun@iijlab.net Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt References: <3FDA9143.8080408@ieee.org> <20031215072640.07E70A0@coconut.itojun.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit itojun@iijlab.net wrote: ... > textual representation > 2.2 (1) has to state how many digits are permitted as "x" > (one component between colon). my personal preference is that > "x" has to be 1 to 4 digits (5 digits or more is invalid). I think an informative reference to draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep-00.txt is needed. I agree that the limit should be 4 digits (optionally including leading zeros) and the draft-main- syntax specifies that. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 16:04:05 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04455 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:04:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMLx-0005LL-HG for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:03:37 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGL3bbl020535 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:03:37 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMLx-0005L8-DZ for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:03:37 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04425 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:03:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMLv-0002U5-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:03:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMLu-0002Tw-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:03:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWMLu-0002Ts-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:03:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMLN-00056n-Az; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:03:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWMKW-00055l-QN for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:02:08 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA04152; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:02:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312162102.QAA04152@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ipv6@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-09.txt Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 16:02:05 -0500 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv6 Flow Label Specification Author(s) : J. Rajahalme, A. Conta, B. Carpenter, S. Deering Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-09.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2003-12-16 This document specifies the IPv6 Flow Label field, the requirements for IPv6 source nodes labeling flows, the requirements for IPv6 nodes forwarding labeled packets, and the requirements for flow state establishment methods. The usage of the Flow Label field enables efficient IPv6 flow classification based only on IPv6 main header fields in fixed positions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-09.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-09.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-09.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-16154207.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-09.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-09.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-16154207.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 18:35:05 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14685 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:35:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOi7-0004DE-99 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:34:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBGNYdVL016186 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:34:39 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOi7-0004Cz-3d for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:34:39 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14641 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:34:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOi4-0002KF-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:34:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOi2-0002Jz-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:34:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOi2-0002Jv-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:34:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOhW-000476-Lq; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:34:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWOgZ-00045Z-Dt for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:33:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA14591 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:32:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOgW-0002GR-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:33:00 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOgV-0002G8-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:33:00 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWOgU-0002Fh-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 18:32:58 -0500 Received: from crowley.qualcomm.com (crowley.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBGNWrVY010747 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:32:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAEXFE03.na.qualcomm.com (naexfe03.qualcomm.com [172.30.32.23]) by crowley.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBGNWphj020660 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:32:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAEX01.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.60]) by NAEXFE03.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:32:51 -0800 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6470.0 Subject: Question about Interface ID length Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2003 15:32:50 -0800 Message-ID: <17D8F6DF3ED94D40BD607380866D9B7F33D1E9@NAEX01.na.qualcomm.com> Thread-Topic: Question about Interface ID length Thread-Index: AcPELOvGQQv7F53MR5KN4sHcB5Y6HQ== From: "Barany, Pete" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2003 23:32:51.0483 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC13C6B0:01C3C42C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, --> For the RFC 2462bis I-D there was a list of issues sent out during Oct. 2003 and one of the issues was: ----- "If RFC2462 requires 64bit IFID by several people, several times." So far in the RFC 2462bis I-D the answer appears to be "No" since no changes in the I-D indicate otherwise. ----- --> Referring to RFC 3513 (and now also RFC 3513bis), the following statement is made in Section 2.5.1: ----- "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64 format." So here it appears that the answer to the question in RFC 2461bis should be "Yes"? ----- --> There seems to be an inconsistency here. I am concerned that this issue may also have ramifications for other RFCs. For example, in RFC 2526, the following statement is made in Section 2: ----- "For other IPv6 address types (that is, with format prefixes other than those listed above), the interface identifier is not in EUI-64 format and may be other than 64 bits in length; these reserved subnet anycast addresses for such address types are constructed as follows:" | n bits | 121-n bits | 7 bits | +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ | subnet prefix | 1111111...111111 | anycast ID | +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ | interface identifier field | ----- --> How is this to be resolved? Thanks. Regards, Pete -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 16 22:54:21 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23184 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:54:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWSkv-0005Ym-Sd for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:55 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBH3rnfE021368 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWSkv-0005YV-D5 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23166 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWSkr-0001hY-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWSkr-0001hR-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:45 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWSkq-0001hO-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:44 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWSk9-0005SM-QY; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:53:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWSjp-0005Rh-Ka for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:52:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA23133 for ; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:52:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWSjm-0001ew-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:52:38 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWSjl-0001ep-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:52:37 -0500 Received: from imsmta2.indosat.net.id ([202.155.50.25]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWSjk-0001e4-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:52:37 -0500 Received: from IWED ([202.155.88.121]) by imsmta2.indosat.net.id (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.12 (built Feb 13 2003)) with SMTP id <0HQ000IHAS90SN@imsmta2.indosat.net.id> for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:27:01 +0700 (JVT) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 10:43:09 +0700 From: Farida Ariani Subject: test To: ipv6@ietf.org Message-id: <00c901c3c44f$e3c4eca0$0b00030a@indosat.net.id> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_2i6JFOKcvHQYJ9ytcN7Dvw)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_2i6JFOKcvHQYJ9ytcN7Dvw) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT test please ignore --Boundary_(ID_2i6JFOKcvHQYJ9ytcN7Dvw) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
test please ignore
--Boundary_(ID_2i6JFOKcvHQYJ9ytcN7Dvw)-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 06:32:26 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03711 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:32:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWZuI-0006UR-Fu for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:31:59 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHBVwvV024944 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:31:58 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWZuI-0006UF-8q for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:31:58 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03666 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:31:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWZuE-00075A-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:31:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWZuD-00074v-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:31:54 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWZuC-00074q-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:31:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWZtO-0006Ni-OC; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:31:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWZsj-0006MP-79 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:30:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA03575 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:30:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWZsa-0006zI-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:30:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWZsA-0006z7-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:29:46 -0500 Received: from uillean.fuaim.com ([206.197.161.140]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWZs9-0006xg-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:29:46 -0500 Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) by uillean.fuaim.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBHBSpV08386; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:28:51 -0800 Received: from innovationslab.net (md-wmnsmd-cuda2-c6a-a-4.chvlva.adelphia.net [68.65.120.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by clairseach.fuaim.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBHBZLbS006958 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 03:35:25 -0800 Message-ID: <3FE03DD4.7030900@innovationslab.net> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 06:28:20 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Barany, Pete" CC: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Question about Interface ID length References: <17D8F6DF3ED94D40BD607380866D9B7F33D1E9@NAEX01.na.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <17D8F6DF3ED94D40BD607380866D9B7F33D1E9@NAEX01.na.qualcomm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Pete, 2462bis does not contain any changes as of yet. The document exists currently to document the issues that need to be addressed. So, the point on IID length should be addressed in 2462bis at some point. Brian Barany, Pete wrote: > Hi, > > --> For the RFC 2462bis I-D there was a list of issues sent out during > Oct. 2003 and one of the issues was: > ----- > "If RFC2462 requires 64bit IFID > by several people, several times." > > So far in the RFC 2462bis I-D the answer appears to be "No" since no > changes in the I-D indicate otherwise. > ----- > > --> Referring to RFC 3513 (and now also RFC 3513bis), the following > statement is made in Section 2.5.1: > ----- > "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value > 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed > in Modified EUI-64 format." > > So here it appears that the answer to the question in RFC 2461bis should > be "Yes"? > ----- > > --> There seems to be an inconsistency here. I am concerned that this > issue may also have ramifications for other RFCs. For example, in RFC > 2526, the following statement is made in Section 2: > ----- > "For other IPv6 address types (that is, with format prefixes other than > those listed above), the interface identifier is not in EUI-64 format > and may be other than 64 bits in length; these reserved subnet anycast > addresses for such address types are constructed as follows:" > | n bits | 121-n bits | 7 bits | > +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ > | subnet prefix | 1111111...111111 | anycast ID | > +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ > | interface identifier field | > ----- > > --> How is this to be resolved? Thanks. > > Regards, > > Pete > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 11:05:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17354 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:05:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWeAn-0008Gz-P8 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:05:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHG5HeY031800 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:05:17 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWeAn-0008Gp-GX for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:05:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17323 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:05:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWeAk-0004R7-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:05:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWeAk-0004R0-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:05:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWeAj-0004Qx-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:05:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWe9Z-0008A3-QM; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWe9N-00089U-JV for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:03:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA17301 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWe9K-0004Q3-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:03:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWe9K-0004Pw-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:03:46 -0500 Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com ([192.18.98.43]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWe9J-0004Ps-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 11:03:45 -0500 Received: from bebop.France.Sun.COM ([129.157.174.15]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBHG2ZAR024229; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:02:36 -0700 (MST) Received: from bobo (dhcp-gnb07-211-22 [129.157.211.22]) by bebop.France.Sun.COM (8.11.7p1+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with SMTP id hBHG2ZQ20423; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 17:02:35 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 08:02:38 -0800 (PST) From: Erik Nordmark Reply-To: Erik Nordmark Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt To: itojun@iijlab.net Cc: hinden@iprg.nokia.com, deering@cisco.com, ipv6@ietf.org Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > IPv4 mapped address > if I remember correctly draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02.txt > (IPv4 mapped address on-wire is harmful) got enough consensus. please > document that IPv4 mapped address is not permitted on wire, in 2.5.5. That would seem inconsistent with the SIIT RFC which is a proposed standard. Thus *if* we should ban IPv4 mapped addresses on the wire, the correct order would be to deprecated the SIIT RFC first and then update the addressing architecture. And it seems like v6ops WG is on the path to clarify the applicability of NAT-PT and SIIT and not downright deprecating them. > IPv4 compatible address > 2.5.5 states that "The IPv6 transition mechanisms [TRAN] include..." > for IPv4 compatible address. however, [TRAN] (RFC2893) no longer > includes automatic tunnel. Incorrect. Is it not until the update to RFC 2893 (currently an internet-draft) that automatic tunnels and compatible addresses have been removed. Given that this draft will hopefully be finished by v6ops I actually think it is ok to remove the IPv4 compatible addresses from addr-arch at this point in time. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 17 12:57:23 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23513 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:57:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfup-0007mg-Bi for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:56:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBHHuthV029916 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:56:55 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfup-0007mR-7L for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:56:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23460 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:56:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfun-0001XB-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:56:53 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfuk-0001Wj-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:56:53 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWfuk-0001Wg-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:56:50 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfu0-0007gL-4H; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:56:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AWfte-0007eu-1v for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:55:42 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA23316 for ; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:55:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWftc-0001Oc-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:55:40 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AWftX-0001Nv-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:55:39 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AWftW-0001NM-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:55:34 -0500 Received: from crowley.qualcomm.com (crowley.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBHHtUVY015978 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:55:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAEXFE03.na.qualcomm.com (naexfe03.qualcomm.com [172.30.32.23]) by crowley.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBHHtRhj007619; Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:55:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAEX01.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.60]) by NAEXFE03.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:55:27 -0800 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6470.0 Subject: RE: Question about Interface ID length Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 09:55:27 -0800 Message-ID: <17D8F6DF3ED94D40BD607380866D9B7F327CD2@NAEX01.na.qualcomm.com> Thread-Topic: Question about Interface ID length Thread-Index: AcPEkXTMyfs5X9HjS/SrwxnCEV7MNwAKTgmA From: "Barany, Pete" To: Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Dec 2003 17:55:27.0873 (UTC) FILETIME=[F45BC710:01C3C4C6] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Brian, Thanks for the reply/clarification regarding RFC 2462bis. But what about the terminology used for anycast addresses in both RFC 3513 (and RFC 3513bis)(e.g., the Subnet-Router anycast address) and RFC 2526 (e.g., the MIPv6 Home-Agents anycast address)? According to Section 2.6 in RFC 3513: ---- "Anycast addresses are allocated from the unicast address space, using any of the defined unicast address formats. Thus, anycast addresses are syntactically indistinguishable from unicast addresses". ---- So are we to assume that the following statement from Section 2.5.1 in RFC 3513 does not apply to anycast addresses? (and I understand that the statement below specifically says "unicast"): ---- For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified EUI-64 format." ---- Regards, Pete -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 3:28 AM To: Barany, Pete Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Question about Interface ID length Pete, 2462bis does not contain any changes as of yet. The document exists currently to document the issues that need to be addressed. So, the point on IID length should be addressed in 2462bis at some point. Brian Barany, Pete wrote: > Hi, >=20 > --> For the RFC 2462bis I-D there was a list of issues sent out during > Oct. 2003 and one of the issues was: > ----- > "If RFC2462 requires 64bit IFID > by several people, several times." >=20 > So far in the RFC 2462bis I-D the answer appears to be "No" since no > changes in the I-D indicate otherwise. > ----- >=20 > --> Referring to RFC 3513 (and now also RFC 3513bis), the following > statement is made in Section 2.5.1: > ----- > "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value > 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed > in Modified EUI-64 format." >=20 > So here it appears that the answer to the question in RFC 2461bis should > be "Yes"? > ----- >=20 > --> There seems to be an inconsistency here. I am concerned that this > issue may also have ramifications for other RFCs. For example, in RFC > 2526, the following statement is made in Section 2: > ----- > "For other IPv6 address types (that is, with format prefixes other than > those listed above), the interface identifier is not in EUI-64 format > and may be other than 64 bits in length; these reserved subnet anycast > addresses for such address types are constructed as follows:" > | n bits | 121-n bits | 7 bits | > +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ > | subnet prefix | 1111111...111111 | anycast ID | > +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ > | interface identifier field | > ----- >=20 > --> How is this to be resolved? Thanks. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Pete >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 15:32:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15515 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX4or-0006iW-QO for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:25 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIKWPic025819 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:25 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX4or-0006iM-M9 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15444 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX4oq-00063s-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX4oo-00063a-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:23 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX4oo-00063W-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX4nX-0006It-5C; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:31:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX4nL-0006HP-Q9 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:30:51 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15133; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:30:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312182030.PAA15133@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ipv6@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:30:49 -0500 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : Default Router Preferences, More-Specific Routes and Load Sharing Author(s) : R. Draves, R. Hinden Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2003-12-18 This document describes an optional extension to Router Advertisement messages for communicating default router preferences and more-specific routes from routers to hosts. This improves the ability of hosts to pick an appropriate router, especially when the host is multi-homed and the routers are on different links. The preference values and specific routes advertised to hosts require administrative configuration; they are not automatically derived from routing tables. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-18142809.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-18142809.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 18 15:32:58 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15545 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX4ov-0006kV-P8 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBIKWThA025937 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:29 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX4ov-0006kG-K5 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15452 for ; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX4ou-000649-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AX4ot-000642-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:28 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AX4ot-00063X-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:32:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX4nY-0006J5-Ew; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:31:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AX4nQ-0006HX-9h for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:30:56 -0500 Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA15147; Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:30:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200312182030.PAA15147@ietf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" To: IETF-Announce: ; Cc: ipv6@ietf.org From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Reply-to: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:30:53 -0500 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MIME_BOUND_NEXTPART, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 --NextPart A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : Default Router Preferences, More-Specific Routes and Load Sharing Author(s) : R. Draves, R. Hinden Filename : draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2003-12-18 This document describes an optional extension to Router Advertisement messages for communicating default router preferences and more-specific routes from routers to hosts. This improves the ability of hosts to pick an appropriate router, especially when the host is multi-homed and the routers are on different links. The preference values and specific routes advertised to hosts require administrative configuration; they are not automatically derived from routing tables. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt To remove yourself from the IETF Announcement list, send a message to ietf-announce-request with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then "get draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt". A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail. Send a message to: mailserv@ietf.org. In the body type: "FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt". NOTE: The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility. To use this feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE" command. To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or a MIME-compliant mail reader. Different MIME-compliant mail readers exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with "multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on how to manipulate these messages. Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Multipart/Alternative; Boundary="OtherAccess" --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; access-type="mail-server"; server="mailserv@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-18142809.I-D@ietf.org> ENCODING mime FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt --OtherAccess Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-ipv6-router-selection-03.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2003-12-18142809.I-D@ietf.org> --OtherAccess-- --NextPart-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 19 11:27:07 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14822 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:27:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXNSW-0007gu-Gx for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:26:39 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJGQas4029558 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:26:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXNSW-0007gf-Bp for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:26:36 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14795 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:26:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXNSV-00002o-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:26:35 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXNSU-00002f-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:26:35 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXNSU-00002c-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:26:34 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXNRx-0007bF-RZ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:26:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXNRQ-0007aQ-OV for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:25:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA14780 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:25:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXNRP-000028-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:25:27 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXNRP-000021-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:25:27 -0500 Received: from mail.troy-networks.com ([63.98.102.230] helo=troy-networks.troy-networks.com ident=root) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXNRO-00001y-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:25:26 -0500 Received: from troy-networks.troy-networks.com (IDENT:frank@troy-networks.troy-networks.com [63.98.102.230]) by troy-networks.troy-networks.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id hBJHScv03203 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:28:57 -0500 Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:28:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Frank P. Troy" To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Format Prefix Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 The FP Format Prefix (001) seems to identify in a broad sense the providers and exchanges who deliver public Internet transit services. For other (non-public) providers that don't want to be in the public eye, besides filtering and firewalls what are the options? Thanks Frank -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 19 12:28:17 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16805 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:28:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXOPl-0002uG-MJ for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:27:49 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJHRncE011171 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:27:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXOPl-0002u6-FX for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:27:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16782 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:27:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXOPk-0001ld-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:27:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXOPj-0001lW-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:27:47 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXOPj-0001lT-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:27:47 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXOP0-0002oD-0P; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:27:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXOOP-0002nB-04 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:26:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA16759 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:26:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXOON-0001iw-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:26:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXOOM-0001ip-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:26:23 -0500 Received: from evrtwa1-ar8-4-65-029-023.evrtwa1.dsl-verizon.net ([4.65.29.23] helo=tndh.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXOOL-0001il-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 12:26:22 -0500 Received: from eaglet (127.0.0.1:4646) by tndh.net with [XMail 1.17 (Win32/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id for from ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:26:31 -0800 From: "Tony Hain" To: "'Frank P. Troy'" , Subject: RE: Format Prefix Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 09:26:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 thread-index: AcPGTObjqeznW9WhRbeHXFkWpP7OSwAB1uXw In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MISSING_OUTLOOK_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Frank P. Troy wrote: > The FP Format Prefix (001) seems to identify in a broad sense the > providers and exchanges who deliver public Internet transit services. For > other (non-public) providers that don't want to be in the public eye, > besides filtering and firewalls what are the options? http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-templin-ipv6-localcomm-04.txt http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-01.txt Please send comments if these documents are not exactly what you are looking for. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 19 16:39:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28739 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:39:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXSKe-00050I-Ij for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:38:48 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJLcm9d019228 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:38:48 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXSKe-000503-Bl for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:38:48 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28708 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:38:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXSKc-000417-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:38:46 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXSKb-000410-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:38:46 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=manatick) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXSKb-00040x-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:38:45 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by manatick with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AXSKb-0003Qg-Jt for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:38:45 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXSJv-0004rQ-IU; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:38:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXSJm-0004oT-N7 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:37:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA28690 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:37:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXSJk-0003zq-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:37:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXSJj-0003zj-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:37:51 -0500 Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.104]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXSJj-0003yR-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:37:51 -0500 Received: from northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (northrelay02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.150]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id hBJLbKtS757406 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:37:21 -0500 Received: from d01ml099.pok.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by northrelay02.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id hBJLbJpl227432 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:37:20 -0500 Subject: Nicholas Carbone/Poughkeepsie/IBM is out of the office. From: Nicholas Carbone To: ipv6@ietf.org Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 16:37:18 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D01ML099/01/M/IBM(Release 6.0.2CF2 IGS_HF11|December 1, 2003) at 12/19/2003 16:37:19 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 I will be out of the office starting December 19, 2003 and will not return until December 22, 2003. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Fri Dec 19 18:22:02 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03316 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:22:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXTw7-0000PV-PV for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:21:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBJNLZmj001574 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:21:35 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXTw7-0000PJ-JP for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:21:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03261 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:21:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXTvs-0007Tl-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:21:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXTvr-0007Te-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:21:20 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXTvr-0007Ta-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:21:19 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXTvb-0000Ey-0F; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:21:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXTup-0000Ds-TC for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:20:15 -0500 Received: from asgard.ietf.org (asgard.ietf.org [10.27.6.40]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA03233 for ; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:20:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from apache by asgard.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.14) id 1AXTuE-0003oi-49; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:19:38 -0500 X-test-idtracker: no From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce:; Cc: Internet Architecture Board , RFC Editor , Subject: Protocol Action: 'IPv6 Flow Label Specification' to Proposed Standard Message-Id: Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:19:38 -0500 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IPv6 Flow Label Specification ' as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the IP Version 6 Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Thomas Narten and Margaret Wasserman. Technical Summary The details of the IPv6 Flow Label are not defined in detail in the base IPv6 documents (i.e., RFC 2460). Although an appendix in 2460 provides some background and a possible usage, they are not considered part of the specification itself. This document specifies the IPv6 Flow Label field, the requirements for IPv6 source nodes labeling flows, the requirements for IPv6 nodes forwarding labeled packets, and the requirements for flow state establishment methods. Working Group Summary There was consensus in the WG for the current definitions. Indeed, there has been a desire for sometime to define the Flow Label, as its considered a part of IPv6, and its lack of a clear definition contributed to an appearance of lack of completeness. Protocol Quality This document has been reviewed for the IESG by Thomas Narten. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 10:53:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11467 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:53:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXjPv-0007Mr-SH for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:53:24 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBKFrNve028319 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:53:23 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXjPv-0007Mg-HY for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:53:23 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11457 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:53:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjPo-0004Pf-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:53:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjPO-0004PV-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:52:50 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjPO-0004P8-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:52:50 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXjOc-0007HF-3N; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:52:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXjOL-0007Gv-IQ for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:51:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11413 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:51:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjO3-0004Na-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:51:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjNd-0004NM-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:51:02 -0500 Received: from ns2.sea.ygnition.net ([66.135.144.2] helo=ns2.sea) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXjNd-0004Kz-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 10:51:01 -0500 Received: from ssprunk (ip188.post-vineyard.dfw.ygnition.net [66.135.181.188]) by ns2.sea (8.12.10/8.12.5) with SMTP id hBKFo0JR004354; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 07:50:00 -0800 Message-ID: <045b01c3c710$d79d99e0$6401a8c0@ssprunk> From: "Stephen Sprunk" To: "Barany, Pete" , References: <17D8F6DF3ED94D40BD607380866D9B7F33D1E9@NAEX01.na.qualcomm.com> Subject: Re: Question about Interface ID length Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:44:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thus spake "Barany, Pete" > ... RFC 3513 ... Section 2.5.1: > ----- > "For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value > 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed > in Modified EUI-64 format." > > ... RFC 2526 ... Section 2: > ----- > "For other IPv6 address types (that is, with format prefixes other than > those listed above), the interface identifier is not in EUI-64 format > and may be other than 64 bits in length; these reserved subnet anycast > addresses for such address types are constructed as follows:" > | n bits | 121-n bits | 7 bits | > +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ > | subnet prefix | 1111111...111111 | anycast ID | > +---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ > | interface identifier field | > ----- Different angle... RFC 3513 and RFC 2526 both seem to outlaw* the common and logical practice of using /127 networks (and thus a 1-bit Interface ID) for point-to-point and tunnel links, because the IID isn't long enough and there's no space for the 7-bit anycast ID, respectively. Can we put some sort of exception for /127 networks in the RFC updates? * at least in format prefix 001, which is what operators will want to use. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 11:56:14 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12931 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:56:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkOH-0000p3-UN for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:55:46 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBKGtjDZ003160 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:55:45 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkOH-0000ot-O5 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:55:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12868 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkOF-0006ao-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:55:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkOA-0006aF-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:55:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkOA-0006ZT-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:55:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkNb-0000hL-Is; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:55:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkMY-0000gQ-NT for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:54:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA12834 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:53:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkMS-0006W9-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:53:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkM2-0006Vi-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:53:27 -0500 Received: from uillean.fuaim.com ([206.197.161.140]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkM2-0006UI-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:53:26 -0500 Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) by uillean.fuaim.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBKGqUV08581; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:52:30 -0800 Received: from innovationslab.net (md-wmnsmd-cuda2-c6a-a-4.chvlva.adelphia.net [68.65.120.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by clairseach.fuaim.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBKGxFbS020857 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:59:18 -0800 Message-ID: <3FE47E30.6010800@innovationslab.net> Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:52:00 -0500 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Sprunk CC: "Barany, Pete" , ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Question about Interface ID length References: <17D8F6DF3ED94D40BD607380866D9B7F33D1E9@NAEX01.na.qualcomm.com> <045b01c3c710$d79d99e0$6401a8c0@ssprunk> In-Reply-To: <045b01c3c710$d79d99e0$6401a8c0@ssprunk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I would suggest reading RFC 3627. Regards, Brian Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Barany, Pete" > >>... RFC 3513 ... Section 2.5.1: >>----- >>"For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value >>000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed >>in Modified EUI-64 format." >> >>... RFC 2526 ... Section 2: >>----- >>"For other IPv6 address types (that is, with format prefixes other than >>those listed above), the interface identifier is not in EUI-64 format >>and may be other than 64 bits in length; these reserved subnet anycast >>addresses for such address types are constructed as follows:" >>| n bits | 121-n bits | 7 bits | >>+---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ >>| subnet prefix | 1111111...111111 | anycast ID | >>+---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ >> | interface identifier field | >>----- > > > Different angle... > > RFC 3513 and RFC 2526 both seem to outlaw* the common and logical practice > of using /127 networks (and thus a 1-bit Interface ID) for point-to-point > and tunnel links, because the IID isn't long enough and there's no space for > the 7-bit anycast ID, respectively. Can we put some sort of exception for > /127 networks in the RFC updates? > > * at least in format prefix 001, which is what operators will want to use. > > S > > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 12:02:43 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13105 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:02:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkUZ-0001UV-Sc for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:02:15 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBKH2FeM005732 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:02:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkUZ-0001UN-NH for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:02:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13083 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:02:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkUY-0006sC-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:02:14 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkUX-0006s5-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:02:14 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkUW-0006s2-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:02:13 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkUL-0001Nq-Q9; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkTP-00017A-Ex for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:01:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13059 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:01:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkTO-0006qK-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:01:02 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkTM-0006qC-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:01:01 -0500 Received: from numenor.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.58]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkTM-0006q8-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:01:00 -0500 Received: from sabrina.qualcomm.com (sabrina.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.150]) by numenor.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBKH0uVY016766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:00:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAEXFE01.na.qualcomm.com (naexfe01.qualcomm.com [172.30.32.17]) by sabrina.qualcomm.com (8.12.10/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id hBKH0r0N004539; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:00:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from NAEX01.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.60]) by NAEXFE01.na.qualcomm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:00:53 -0800 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6470.0 Subject: RE: Question about Interface ID length Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:00:52 -0800 Message-ID: <17D8F6DF3ED94D40BD607380866D9B7F33D1EC@NAEX01.na.qualcomm.com> Thread-Topic: Question about Interface ID length Thread-Index: AcPHGdZDGfca0rQaTJyX2vZHjbschwAAEsOA From: "Barany, Pete" To: "Brian Haberman" , "Stephen Sprunk" Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2003 17:00:53.0890 (UTC) FILETIME=[D426DE20:01C3C71A] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable More generally, I still don't see why there is a restriction on the prefix length for all IPv6 unicast addresses where the first 3 MSBs are other than 000. I could understand the wording in RFC 3513 (and RFC 3513bis) if the restriction was intended for "unicast addresses that are configured via stateless address autoconfiguration" (thus my initial comment about the need to update RFC 2462bis). But some operators may want to use DHCPv6 (stateful address autoconfiguration) where there is no concept of prefixes per se (just 128 bit addresses). Therefore, as an example, if an operator wanted to have a /65 subnet(or some other subnet where the prefix is greater than /64) (and I am not saying that this is a good idea), at least the RFCs wouldn't prohibit it in the present/future. It seems like an unnecessary/unwise limitation IMHO. Regards, Pete -----Original Message----- From: Brian Haberman [mailto:brian@innovationslab.net]=20 Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 8:52 AM To: Stephen Sprunk Cc: Barany, Pete; ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Question about Interface ID length I would suggest reading RFC 3627. Regards, Brian Stephen Sprunk wrote: > Thus spake "Barany, Pete" >=20 >>... RFC 3513 ... Section 2.5.1: >>----- >>"For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value >>000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed >>in Modified EUI-64 format." >> >>... RFC 2526 ... Section 2: >>----- >>"For other IPv6 address types (that is, with format prefixes other than >>those listed above), the interface identifier is not in EUI-64 format >>and may be other than 64 bits in length; these reserved subnet anycast >>addresses for such address types are constructed as follows:" >>| n bits | 121-n bits | 7 bits | >>+---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ >>| subnet prefix | 1111111...111111 | anycast ID | >>+---------------------------------+------------------+------------+ >> | interface identifier field | >>----- >=20 >=20 > Different angle... >=20 > RFC 3513 and RFC 2526 both seem to outlaw* the common and logical practice > of using /127 networks (and thus a 1-bit Interface ID) for point-to-point > and tunnel links, because the IID isn't long enough and there's no space for > the 7-bit anycast ID, respectively. Can we put some sort of exception for > /127 networks in the RFC updates? >=20 > * at least in format prefix 001, which is what operators will want to use. >=20 > S >=20 > Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein > CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the > K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 12:10:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13415 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkcF-0002CT-93 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBKHABcd008451 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkcF-0002CE-4k for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13391 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkcD-0007Kn-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:09 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkcC-0007Kf-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:09 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkcC-0007Kc-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:08 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkc8-00028Z-4M; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkc2-00027w-PI for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:59 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13384 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkc1-0007Ji-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkby-0007JL-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:56 -0500 Received: from zmamail03.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkby-0007JB-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:54 -0500 Received: from tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.96]) by zmamail03.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8278C1115F; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:54 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:09:53 -0500 Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B05122DD4@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> Thread-Topic: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt Thread-Index: AcPC3Q8K5ZfZyPhISJyVb2efGqL8bgEPrVUA From: "Bound, Jim" To: Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2003 17:09:54.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=[16430AD0:01C3C71C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I support this nice concise report. Esp. that multicast is well defined and I agree. IPv4 Mapped "on the wire" should not be permitted ok as API for 3493. Kill NSAPs they are dead and gone. ACK on compatible address too. Thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of itojun@iijlab.net > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 2:27 AM > To: hinden@iprg.nokia.com; deering@cisco.com > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt >=20 >=20 > as an IAB i was asked to comment on=20 > draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt, > so here it is. happy holidays. >=20 > itojun >=20 >=20 > MAJOR > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > "scope" > the use of word/concept "scope" needs more care. moreover the > terminology is not consistent (such as "link-scope" and=20 > "local scope").=20 > (maybe this is because there is a separate draft for=20 > scoped address > architecture, but anyways, first-time readers will get=20 > confused). >=20 > multicast scope is well documented in 2.7. the problem=20 > is in the way > unicast scope is documented. >=20 > here are use of unicast "scope" in the document (maybe=20 > i missed some of > those): > 2.1: link-scope > 2.4: of any scope=20 > 2.5.1: over a broader scope > local scope interface identifier > universal scope interface identifier > universal scope (multiple occurrences) > local scope (multiple occurrences) > 2.5.3: link-local scope >=20 > solution: there has to be a section describing what the=20 > unicast "scope" > is, in very early part of the document. it can be very=20 > simple as there > are only two scopes - link-local and global. > use terminology such as "link-local scope" or "global scope" > consistently. >=20 > another solution: refer to scoped address architecture document. > however, it will create dependency to scoped address=20 > architecture > document which is not very desirable. >=20 > it seems that the document tries to use "universal=20 > scope" to refer > the scope of global unicast address, however, it is a=20 > bit confusing. > maybe it is better to use "global scope" - in fact, ff0e::/16 is > called "global scope", not "universal scope". >=20 > textual representation > 2.2 (1) has to state how many digits are permitted as "x" > (one component between colon). my personal preference is that > "x" has to be 1 to 4 digits (5 digits or more is invalid). >=20 > remove "::13.1.68.3" from example for (3), as we no longer have > IPv4 compatible address (not to confuse readers). >=20 > IPv4 mapped address > if I remember correctly=20 > draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02.txt > (IPv4 mapped address on-wire is harmful) got enough=20 > consensus. please > document that IPv4 mapped address is not permitted on=20 > wire, in 2.5.5. >=20 > i know this is not a document to discuss on-wire stuff, however, > there's no better place to document it. >=20 > IPv4 compatible address > 2.5.5 states that "The IPv6 transition mechanisms=20 > [TRAN] include..." > for IPv4 compatible address. however, [TRAN] (RFC2893)=20 > no longer > includes automatic tunnel. >=20 > solution: mark IPv4 compatible as historic, just like=20 > site-local. >=20 > EUI64 > the last paragraph in 2.5.1 is incorrect: it states=20 > that "Interface IDs > are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed=20 > in Modified > EUI-64 format". however, after "and" (EUI64 portion)=20 > is not true. > (it is not required to construct interface ID based on=20 > EUI64 format, > moreover, EUI64 method is applicable only to interfaces=20 > of certain > media types) >=20 >=20 > MINOR > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > NSAP address > 2.5 and 2.5.4 talks about "encoded NSAP address" which is not of > interest for many of the readers. i'd suggest removing it. > there could be other places where encoded NSAP address=20 > is mentioned. >=20 > (is it used in practice? it'll be interesting to see the > implementation report when the document advances to DS) >=20 > security consideration > it may be worthwhile to state that noone should use addresses as > authenticator - AH (or ESP) has to be used instead. >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 12:11:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13529 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:11:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkd9-0002Nt-Ec for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:11:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBKHB75L009159 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:11:07 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkd9-0002Ne-AD for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:11:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13443 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:11:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkd7-0007NF-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:11:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkd4-0007Mp-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:11:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkd4-0007Md-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:11:02 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkd3-0002IH-M3; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:11:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkcW-0002CY-70 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13395 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkcU-0007LD-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkcU-0007L5-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:26 -0500 Received: from zmamail04.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.104]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkcT-0007L2-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:25 -0500 Received: from tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.96]) by zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB101382B; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:21 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:10:21 -0500 Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B05122DD5@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> Thread-Topic: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt Thread-Index: AcPC3U83rcSz+vNJQ6ixYFVwqL29UgEPs/Tg From: "Bound, Jim" To: "Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino" , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2003 17:10:21.0755 (UTC) FILETIME=[26A030B0:01C3C71C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't remove deering just the contact information. Thanks /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 2:30 AM > To: hinden@iprg.nokia.com > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt >=20 >=20 > > as an IAB i was asked to comment on=20 > draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt, > > so here it is. happy holidays. >=20 > one more ;-) >=20 > itojun >=20 >=20 > MINOR > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > deering@cisco.com is no longer valid, so you may want=20 > to remove it > from the draft. >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sat Dec 20 12:13:37 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13654 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:13:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkf4-0002tA-Vi for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:13:10 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBKHD6Mf011098 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:13:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkf4-0002sv-NT for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:13:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13623 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkf3-0007Yg-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:13:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkf1-0007YQ-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:13:05 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkf1-0007YN-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:13:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkez-0002nJ-UW; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:13:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXkeH-0002go-7Y for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:12:17 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13583 for ; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:12:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkeF-0007VJ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:12:15 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkeE-0007VB-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:12:15 -0500 Received: from zmamail03.zma.compaq.com ([161.114.64.103]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXkeE-0007V8-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:12:14 -0500 Received: from tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.96]) by zmamail03.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4E6A112B6; Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:12:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg11.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:12:14 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: getnameinfo and various protocol types Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:12:14 -0500 Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B05122DD6@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> Thread-Topic: getnameinfo and various protocol types Thread-Index: AcPDUpTJ0M/0WaxRS4WBTnS/XC2v0QDya2Uw From: "Bound, Jim" To: "Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino" , Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2003 17:12:14.0509 (UTC) FILETIME=[69D515D0:01C3C71C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable SCTP API should be done in that spec and be congruent to 3493 and new addendum APIs which we need for getnameinfo. I believe Jack McCann is contacting Itojun to work on addendum API spec for getnameinfo. =20 /jim > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 4:28 PM > To: Erik.Nordmark@sun.com > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; rrs@cisco.com > Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types >=20 >=20 > > > Actualy, RFC2960 explictily states that "All current TCP=20 > ports shall be > > > automatically reserved in the SCTP port address space."=20 > in the IANA > > > considerations section. > >=20 > > That was what I remebered. If this indeed means that there will not > > be any conflicting usage in the future (which the above text doesn't > > explicitly say) then I think we at least don't have the problem > > of getservbyport() returning different results for SCTP and TCP. > >=20 > > Don't know how significant the problem is that a given port=20 > (e.g., 80) > > might not be defined for SCTP, even though the port number is > > reserved, so that getservbyport() for SCTP should > > fail and getservbyport() for TCP would return a service string. >=20 > (it may not be a IPv6 question, but unix API question) >=20 > based on the RFC2960 statement, what should we do about=20 > getservbyport > 2nd argument for SCTP connection, and/or /etc/services entries? >=20 > my guess is that (1) we need to put "foo/sctp" explicitly into=20 > /etc/services and (2) 2nd argument must be "sctp". =20 > this is based on > observation from tcp/udp case (even if there's the same=20 > service - such > as http - on the same port, we put separate entries=20 > into /etc/services) >=20 > itojun >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 00:03:09 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02152 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:03:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXvjl-0005PO-Oc for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:02:42 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBL52fZU020787 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:02:41 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXvjl-0005PC-IP for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:02:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02125 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:02:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXvjj-0004oC-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:02:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXvji-0004o3-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:02:38 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXvji-0004o0-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:02:38 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXvj7-0005JI-4U; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:02:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AXviB-0005Hs-Hp for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:01:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA02092 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:01:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXvi9-0004jh-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:01:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AXvi8-0004jV-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:01:00 -0500 Received: from dsl092-066-068.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.66.68] helo=cyteen.hactrn.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AXvi8-0004jD-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:01:00 -0500 Received: from hactrn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cyteen.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1548B119 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:00:30 -0500 (EST) To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Weekly posting summary for ipv6@ietf.org From: Rob Austein Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 00:00:30 -0500 Message-Id: <20031221050030.1548B119@cyteen.hactrn.net> Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 10.34% | 3 | 14.09% | 18730 | pbarany@qualcomm.com 10.34% | 3 | 13.09% | 17410 | jim.bound@hp.com 10.34% | 3 | 12.26% | 16302 | internet-drafts@ietf.org 6.90% | 2 | 8.16% | 10846 | brian@innovationslab.net 6.90% | 2 | 6.46% | 8588 | ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com 6.90% | 2 | 5.90% | 7846 | erik.nordmark@sun.com 6.90% | 2 | 5.38% | 7150 | itojun@itojun.org 6.90% | 2 | 4.35% | 5789 | brc@zurich.ibm.com 3.45% | 1 | 4.48% | 5953 | itojun@iijlab.net 3.45% | 1 | 3.44% | 4576 | stephen@sprunk.org 3.45% | 1 | 3.28% | 4357 | sra+ipng@hactrn.net 3.45% | 1 | 3.25% | 4319 | jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 3.45% | 1 | 3.16% | 4207 | andrew.e.white@motorola.com 3.45% | 1 | 2.70% | 3589 | alh-ietf@tndh.net 3.45% | 1 | 2.64% | 3514 | iesg-secretary@ietf.org 3.45% | 1 | 2.59% | 3439 | ariani@indosat.net.id 3.45% | 1 | 2.42% | 3214 | pizza@us.ibm.com 3.45% | 1 | 2.35% | 3129 | frank@troy-networks.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 29 |100.00% | 132958 | Total Grunchweather Associates provides this automatic summary on an at-whim basis at the request of the IPv6 WG chairs. Your mileage may vary. We decline responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. If this script produces broken output, you get to keep both pieces. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 05:24:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20393 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:24:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY0kI-0001Qh-6a for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:23:36 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLANYbp005491 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:23:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY0kH-0001QU-VC for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:23:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20362 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:23:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY0kE-0002de-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:23:30 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY0kD-0002dX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:23:30 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY0kD-0002dU-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:23:29 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY0jl-0001LD-Os; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY0jf-0001Kf-Jv for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:22:56 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA20346 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:22:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY0jc-0002cN-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:22:52 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY0ja-0002cG-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:22:51 -0500 Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.151]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY0ja-0002bc-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 05:22:50 -0500 Received: from d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.196] (may be forged)) by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBLAMBHf035962; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:22:11 GMT Received: from collon.zurich.ibm.com (collon.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.143]) by d12relay02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id hBLAMBu3263436; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:22:11 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com ([9.145.172.107]) by collon.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA26196; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:22:06 +0100 Message-ID: <3FE57414.494B0C4@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:21:08 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bound, Jim" CC: itojun@iijlab.net, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt References: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B05122DD4@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Kill NSAPs they are dead and gone. I don't see how we can de-reserve the prefix. It might be time to ask the IESG to reclassify RFC 1888 as Historic. Brian (now off-line until Jan. 5) "Bound, Jim" wrote: > > I support this nice concise report. Esp. that multicast is well defined > and I agree. IPv4 Mapped "on the wire" should not be permitted ok as API > for 3493. Kill NSAPs they are dead and gone. ACK on compatible address > too. > > Thanks > /jim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of itojun@iijlab.net > > Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 2:27 AM > > To: hinden@iprg.nokia.com; deering@cisco.com > > Cc: ipv6@ietf.org > > Subject: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt > > > > > > as an IAB i was asked to comment on > > draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt, > > so here it is. happy holidays. > > > > itojun > > > > > > MAJOR > > ===== > > "scope" > > the use of word/concept "scope" needs more care. moreover the > > terminology is not consistent (such as "link-scope" and > > "local scope"). > > (maybe this is because there is a separate draft for > > scoped address > > architecture, but anyways, first-time readers will get > > confused). > > > > multicast scope is well documented in 2.7. the problem > > is in the way > > unicast scope is documented. > > > > here are use of unicast "scope" in the document (maybe > > i missed some of > > those): > > 2.1: link-scope > > 2.4: of any scope > > 2.5.1: over a broader scope > > local scope interface identifier > > universal scope interface identifier > > universal scope (multiple occurrences) > > local scope (multiple occurrences) > > 2.5.3: link-local scope > > > > solution: there has to be a section describing what the > > unicast "scope" > > is, in very early part of the document. it can be very > > simple as there > > are only two scopes - link-local and global. > > use terminology such as "link-local scope" or "global scope" > > consistently. > > > > another solution: refer to scoped address architecture document. > > however, it will create dependency to scoped address > > architecture > > document which is not very desirable. > > > > it seems that the document tries to use "universal > > scope" to refer > > the scope of global unicast address, however, it is a > > bit confusing. > > maybe it is better to use "global scope" - in fact, ff0e::/16 is > > called "global scope", not "universal scope". > > > > textual representation > > 2.2 (1) has to state how many digits are permitted as "x" > > (one component between colon). my personal preference is that > > "x" has to be 1 to 4 digits (5 digits or more is invalid). > > > > remove "::13.1.68.3" from example for (3), as we no longer have > > IPv4 compatible address (not to confuse readers). > > > > IPv4 mapped address > > if I remember correctly > > draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02.txt > > (IPv4 mapped address on-wire is harmful) got enough > > consensus. please > > document that IPv4 mapped address is not permitted on > > wire, in 2.5.5. > > > > i know this is not a document to discuss on-wire stuff, however, > > there's no better place to document it. > > > > IPv4 compatible address > > 2.5.5 states that "The IPv6 transition mechanisms > > [TRAN] include..." > > for IPv4 compatible address. however, [TRAN] (RFC2893) > > no longer > > includes automatic tunnel. > > > > solution: mark IPv4 compatible as historic, just like > > site-local. > > > > EUI64 > > the last paragraph in 2.5.1 is incorrect: it states > > that "Interface IDs > > are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed > > in Modified > > EUI-64 format". however, after "and" (EUI64 portion) > > is not true. > > (it is not required to construct interface ID based on > > EUI64 format, > > moreover, EUI64 method is applicable only to interfaces > > of certain > > media types) > > > > > > MINOR > > ===== > > NSAP address > > 2.5 and 2.5.4 talks about "encoded NSAP address" which is not of > > interest for many of the readers. i'd suggest removing it. > > there could be other places where encoded NSAP address > > is mentioned. > > > > (is it used in practice? it'll be interesting to see the > > implementation report when the document advances to DS) > > > > security consideration > > it may be worthwhile to state that noone should use addresses as > > authenticator - AH (or ESP) has to be used instead. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 06:13:42 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21132 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY1WN-0002y5-PD for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:13:16 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLBDFtf011403 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:13:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY1WN-0002xq-LM for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:13:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21101 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:13:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1WJ-0003Gh-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:13:12 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1WJ-0003Ga-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:13:11 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1WI-0003GX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:13:10 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY1WA-0002rG-65; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:13:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY1Ve-0002qz-HM for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:12:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21095 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:12:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1Va-0003GP-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:12:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1VZ-0003GI-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:12:26 -0500 Received: from [213.37.210.120] (helo=chema.homelinux.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1VZ-0003F1-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:12:25 -0500 Received: by chema.homelinux.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5FFC0929C2; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:11:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:11:56 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Mar=EDa?= Mateos To: IPV6 Subject: Recommended RFCs Message-ID: <20031221111156.GC11594@chema.homelinux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB" Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.23 i686 X-Organization: Linux World Domination Plan (LWDP) X-Echelon-header: Al-Qaeda bomb Bin Laden decrypt terror CIA Enfopol X-Request-PGP: http://chema.homelinux.org/~chema/key.asc X-PGP-KeyID: 2948FA19 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi everybody, Is there anywhere a comprehensive list of RFCs involving IPv6 issues? Regards. --=20 No software patents in Europe http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es - EuropeSwPatentFree Blog Overflow: http://chema.homelinux.org --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/5X/89P6GbSlI+hkRAkyMAKCU5Iyz4UkVBNKkX64hOOX/vqulaQCfS8MC UwlgY3EIxi55jE7/3sGUnrk= =kOm3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gr/z0/N6AeWAPJVB-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 06:17:34 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21253 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:17:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY1a5-0003Ni-8h for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:17:08 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLBH5Nd012992 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:17:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY1a4-0003NT-MT for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:17:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21224 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:17:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1a0-0003MK-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:17:01 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1a0-0003MD-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:17:00 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1Zz-0003M9-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:16:59 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY1a1-0003Bc-2p; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:17:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY1Zg-0003BI-2I for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:16:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA21212 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1Zc-0003Lh-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:16:36 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1Zb-0003LZ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:16:35 -0500 Received: from 33.cust16.nsw.dsl.ozemail.com.au ([203.102.111.33] helo=nosense.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY1Za-0003Ks-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 06:16:35 -0500 Received: from Dupy2.nosense.org (33.cust16.nsw.dsl.ozemail.com.au [203.102.111.33]) by nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DDD3A3F02A for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:45:15 +1030 (CST) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:45:15 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Recommended RFCs Message-Id: <20031221214515.7b7befc3.ipv6@c753173126e0bc8b057a22829880cf26.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <20031221111156.GC11594@chema.homelinux.org> References: <20031221111156.GC11594@chema.homelinux.org> Organization: The No Sense Organisation X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:11:56 +0100 Jos=E9 Mar=EDa Mateos wrote: > Hi everybody, >=20 > Is there anywhere a comprehensive list of RFCs involving IPv6 > issues? >=20 > Regards. > --=20 > No software patents in Europe > http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es - EuropeSwPatentFree > Blog Overflow: http://chema.homelinux.org >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 07:04:55 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22109 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:04:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2Jx-0004RB-0X for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:04:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLC4SLq017051 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:04:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2Jw-0004Qw-Ro for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:04:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22072 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:04:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2Js-00047S-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:04:24 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2Jr-00047L-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:04:24 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2Jr-00047H-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:04:23 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2JW-0004Lf-3g; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:04:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY2JP-0004LQ-49 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:03:55 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA22067 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:03:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2JK-00047B-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:03:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2JJ-000474-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:03:50 -0500 Received: from raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([152.78.70.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY2JJ-000471-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 07:03:49 -0500 Received: from pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (ns1 [152.78.68.1]) by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15865 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:03:50 GMT Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (IDENT:root@login [152.78.68.162]) by pigeon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA26304 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:03:42 GMT Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hBLC3gZ09474 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:03:42 GMT Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:03:42 +0000 From: Tim Chown To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Recommended RFCs Message-ID: <20031221120342.GC9191@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mail-Followup-To: ipv6@ietf.org References: <20031221111156.GC11594@chema.homelinux.org> <20031221214515.7b7befc3.ipv6@c753173126e0bc8b057a22829880cf26.nosense.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031221214515.7b7befc3.ipv6@c753173126e0bc8b057a22829880cf26.nosense.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact helpdesk@ecs.soton.ac.uk for more information X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by raven.ecs.soton.ac.uk id MAA15865 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Also http://www.ist-ipv6.org/modules.php?op=3Dmodload&name=3DWeb_Links&file=3D= index which includes a list of personal I-Ds in the ipv6 and v6ops WGs which yo= u won't find on the IETF or playground sites, Tim On Sun, Dec 21, 2003 at 09:45:15PM +1030, Mark Smith wrote: >=20 >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html >=20 > http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/ipng-main.html >=20 > On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 12:11:56 +0100 > Jos=E9 Mar=EDa Mateos wrote: >=20 > > Hi everybody, > >=20 > > Is there anywhere a comprehensive list of RFCs involving IPv6 > > issues? > >=20 > > Regards. > > --=20 > > No software patents in Europe > > http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es - EuropeSwPatentFree > > Blog Overflow: http://chema.homelinux.org > >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 21 10:08:50 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25975 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:08:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5Bu-0001So-61 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:08:22 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBLF8MTE005620 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:08:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5Bt-0001SZ-Q6 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:08:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25905 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:08:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Br-0007iz-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:08:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Bq-0007im-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:08:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Bq-0007ii-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:08:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5BZ-0001NH-AN; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:08:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AY5Ah-00017n-C1 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:07:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25770 for ; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Af-0007fY-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:07:05 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Ae-0007fR-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:07:04 -0500 Received: from fep02-0.kolumbus.fi ([193.229.0.44] helo=fep02-app.kolumbus.fi) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AY5Ad-0007fM-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:07:04 -0500 Received: from kolumbus.fi ([62.248.170.204]) by fep02-app.kolumbus.fi with ESMTP id <20031221150702.LSUE15326.fep02-app.kolumbus.fi@kolumbus.fi>; Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:07:02 +0200 Message-ID: <3FE5B6DF.8000200@kolumbus.fi> Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 17:06:07 +0200 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Mar=EDa_Mateos?= CC: IPV6 Subject: Re: Recommended RFCs References: <20031221111156.GC11594@chema.homelinux.org> In-Reply-To: <20031221111156.GC11594@chema.homelinux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by ietf.org id KAA25771 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jos=E9 Mar=EDa Mateos wrote: > Hi everybody, >=20 > Is there anywhere a comprehensive list of RFCs involving IPv6 > issues? Depending on what you are looking for, this might also be useful: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-= 07.txt --Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 02:31:49 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06119 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:31:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYKXA-0005QD-Nw for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:31:21 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBM7VK4v020841 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:31:20 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYKXA-0005Q4-Bt for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:31:20 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA06073 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:31:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYKX6-0001AB-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:31:16 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYKX5-0001A4-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:31:16 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYKX4-0001A1-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:31:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYKW5-0005CO-Ae; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:30:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYKVQ-00059g-Is for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:29:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA05959 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:29:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYKVM-00011F-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:29:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYKVL-000116-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:29:28 -0500 Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp ([202.249.10.124]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYKVL-000113-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 02:29:27 -0500 Received: from ocean.jinmei.org (unknown [2001:200:0:8002:208:dff:fe40:3f37]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id B245D15263; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:29:26 +0900 (JST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 16:29:26 +0900 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Brian E Carpenter Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt In-Reply-To: <3FDEE34B.E36C19B9@zurich.ibm.com> References: <3FDA9143.8080408@ieee.org> <20031215072640.07E70A0@coconut.itojun.org> <3FDEE34B.E36C19B9@zurich.ibm.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >>>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:49:47 +0100, >>>>> Brian E Carpenter said: >> textual representation >> 2.2 (1) has to state how many digits are permitted as "x" >> (one component between colon). my personal preference is that >> "x" has to be 1 to 4 digits (5 digits or more is invalid). > I think an informative reference to draft-main-ipaddr-text-rep-00.txt > is needed. In Minneapolis, I made a similar comment and Bob said the reference from addr-arch to ipaddr-text is not necessary (see http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/03nov/minutes/ipv6.htm and search for "ABNF") I myself does not have a particular opinion, but would like to see a consensus. I'm currently revising the scoping architecture draft, and the consensus might affect the references section there, too. > I agree that the limit should be 4 digits (optionally including > leading zeros) and the draft-main- syntax specifies that. Regarding this part, I agree. It should also be noted that we had the same discussion in this April to June (at the ipngwg ML with the subject "IPv6 Address validation"). Unfortunately, we did not reach a consensus at that time as far as I can see. It's nice if we can make it this time. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Mon Dec 22 05:28:54 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09969 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:28:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYNIU-0003ex-ND for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:28:27 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBMASMhp014067 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:28:22 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYNIU-0003eo-Fx for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:28:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09950 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:28:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYNIR-0004oc-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:28:19 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYNIQ-0004oV-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:28:18 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYNIQ-0004oS-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:28:18 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYNI9-0003ZX-QL; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:28:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYNHO-0003YY-Eh for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:27:14 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA09918 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYNHK-0004kr-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:27:10 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYNHJ-0004kk-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:27:10 -0500 Received: from mailout3.samsung.com ([203.254.224.33]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYNHJ-0004kT-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 05:27:09 -0500 Received: from custom-daemon.mailout3.samsung.com by mailout3.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.17 (built Jun 23 2003)) id <0HQA0042BL0FO6@mailout3.samsung.com> for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:26:39 +0900 (KST) Received: from ep_mmp1 (mailout3.samsung.com [203.254.224.33]) by mailout3.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.17 (built Jun 23 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HQA00GNZL015Z@mailout3.samsung.com> for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:26:26 +0900 (KST) Received: from JAYABHARATHI ([107.108.70.42]) by mmp1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.17 (built Jun 23 2003)) with ESMTPA id <0HQA00MEXKZZ2W@mmp1.samsung.com> for ipv6@ietf.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:26:25 +0900 (KST) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:54:43 +0530 From: Jayabharathi Subject: doubt regarding socket options To: ipv6@ietf.org Message-id: <01cc01c3c875$d20bbfa0$2a466c6b@sisodomain.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_MH004WpxUuoIwJbkvjQCYQ)" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_MH004WpxUuoIwJbkvjQCYQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Does the socket options like Destination, Hop-by-hop, and routing header are only used for Raw sockets or needed for all other sockets also??? If they are to be implemented with the other sockets also (STREAM and DATAGRAM ), how does applications receive and use the received option information. In the same way how does we send the same using send / sendto. regds Jaya --Boundary_(ID_MH004WpxUuoIwJbkvjQCYQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Does the socket options like Destination, Hop-by-hop, and routing header are only used for Raw sockets or needed for all other sockets also???
 
If they are to be implemented with the other sockets also (STREAM and DATAGRAM ), how does applications receive and use the received option information.
 
In the same way how does we send the same using send / sendto.
 
 
regds
Jaya
--Boundary_(ID_MH004WpxUuoIwJbkvjQCYQ)-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 05:27:24 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14895 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:27:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjkf-0001Bm-VH for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:58 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNAQvHV004566 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:57 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjkf-0001BZ-RA for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14876 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjkc-00076A-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:26:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjiP-00072z-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:24:37 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjiP-00072w-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:24:37 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjgr-0000x5-LT; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:23:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYjgk-0000wV-4V for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:22:54 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA14663 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:22:50 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjgg-0006wj-01 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:22:50 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjeZ-0006vU-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:20:41 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com ([131.228.20.27]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYjeZ-0006vK-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:20:39 -0500 Received: from esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (esvir04nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.36]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hBNAKdU25089 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:20:39 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir04nok.ntc.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:20:39 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:20:38 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:20:37 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Thread-Index: AcPIFsgHRsoednRPRbGbhM7mCEW/ygADw9xQAEYCpDA= To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Dec 2003 10:20:38.0377 (UTC) FILETIME=[6907A590:01C3C93E] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, The node requirements draft was reviewed by the IESG. Here are the main points raised, arranged by reviewer. The big issue I see is about upgrading IKE to a SHOULD. =20 I'll try to start addressing the points after Christmas, but feel free to discuss it already. Set 1: > I'm astonished that Path MTU is a MAY -- I had thought it was=20 > a MUST. I'd really like some more text explaining what some=20 > of the many exceptions are that are alluded to here. >=20 > For Section 8, RFCs 2401, 2402, and 2406 are currently being=20 > revised by the IPsec group; that should be mentioned. >=20 > The crypto algorithm requirements should be better aligned=20 > with recommendations from the IPsec wg. There's a draft that=20 > lists 3DES as SHOULD, not MAY. >=20 > I think that IKEv? should be a SHOULD, not a MAY. While the=20 > IESG hasn't yet seen draft-bellovin-mandate-keymgmt, it will=20 > soon and it describes automated key management as a "strong=20 > SHOULD". That's certainly the consensus in the security area. >=20 > More generically, I don't think that this WG should=20 > standardize weaker security requirements than the security=20 > area thinks are appropriate, without strong justification. =20 > (Stronger requirements are fine -- they may have a different=20 > operational environment, or a different threat model.) Set 2: =20 > 1. Section 10.1.1 talks about "IP Forwarding Table MIB" > The revision of this MIB document (that you refer to) has a number > of deprecated and obsoleted objects. I think what you want (intend) > to say is that an agent must implement those objects that are > required as per ipForwardFullCompliance or = ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance. >=20 > I am also not sure that this is correct: > Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific > portions of this MIB be supported. > Did you mean "IPv4 or IPv6 specific portions" ? > But maybe the sentence is not needed at all. The two = MODULE-COMPLIANCEs > that I point you to above specify IP version neurtral objects! >=20 > 2. Similar comments/issue with Sect 10.1.2 > I think you want to refer to CURRENT MODULE-COMPLIANCE, namely=20 > ipMIBCompliance2. Pls check and make sure you be specific as to what > needs to be supported. Set 3: > One bigger issue, which may not be worth a Discuss, but=20 > something that=20 > IMHO should be discussed in some forum: >=20 > All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub- > resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with > support for: > =20 > - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596]; > - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152]; > - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 > octets. >=20 > .. I'm operationally concerned about the last SHOULD. As far as I=20 > know, EDNS0 is not really implemented. It does not seem to include a=20 > SHOULD to something that hasn't seen practical, wide-spread deployment = > already. I'd recommend removing this or rewording it to a MAY. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 07:50:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18177 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:50:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYlza-0005dO-FN for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:50:30 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNCoUCr021652 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:50:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYlzY-0005d9-Tw for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:50:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18153 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:50:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYlzO-0003Fx-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:50:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYlys-0003M5-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:49:47 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYlyr-0003LR-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:49:45 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYly9-0005PY-Pw; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:49:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYlxg-0005Oz-5v for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:48:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA18101 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:48:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYlxV-00039f-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:48:21 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYlwy-0003Hk-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:47:49 -0500 Received: from p2.piuha.net ([131.160.192.2]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYlwx-0003Go-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 07:47:48 -0500 Received: from kolumbus.fi (p3.piuha.net [131.160.192.3]) by p2.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47BBA6A901; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:47:17 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <3FE8391C.6060407@kolumbus.fi> Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:46:20 +0200 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: john.loughney@nokia.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: >>I'm astonished that Path MTU is a MAY -- I had thought it was >>a MUST. I'd really like some more text explaining what some >>of the many exceptions are that are alluded to here. It follows RFC 2460, which states: It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981], in order to discover and take advantage of path MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit implementation of Path MTU Discovery. Given this, I'm not sure we can convert it to a MUST. But did you have some specific text issues about the Path MTU text as well? >>For Section 8, RFCs 2401, 2402, and 2406 are currently being >>revised by the IPsec group; that should be mentioned. Ok. I agree that it is good to alert the reader to the fact that some of the documents may have updated RFCs available. Thanks. >>The crypto algorithm requirements should be better aligned >>with recommendations from the IPsec wg. There's a draft that >>lists 3DES as SHOULD, not MAY. The problem is that the requirements have been aligned with the recommendations of the IPsec, as they exist in *RFCs*. Not drafts. I personally think that we need to recommend and inform about better alternatives, even if such alternatives do not yet exist as RFCs or if they are not mandated by keywords. This is what we have done -- the document talks about 3DES, AES, etc. However, there has been general resistance in the WG (maybe even the ADs) for us to mandate anything beyond the current normative RFCs. It was felt that the original RFCs should rather be updated than the node requirements document made to impose additional requirements. If the IESG thinks its okay for us to mandate stronger algorithms than what the current IPsec RFCs say, then I'm going to be *very* happy. But if, not then I think its up to the IPsec WG to advance their documents and mandate the algorithms that they think are appropriate. >>I think that IKEv? should be a SHOULD, not a MAY. While the >>IESG hasn't yet seen draft-bellovin-mandate-keymgmt, it will >>soon and it describes automated key management as a "strong >>SHOULD". That's certainly the consensus in the security area. This is also related to the question of what the current RFCs say. In the case of IKE, I'm actually uncertain what the keyword is -- it is not immediately clear to me from the document. Perhaps it is to others, I would appreciate comments on this! I think we should use a keyword that the current RFCs have, whatever that is. Anyway, I think the node requirements document is somewhat different than a usual IETF protocol document. In the RFC for for protocol FOO, there are some security issues and those are solved with the support of some security mechanisms. But here, the specific security issues appear within the RFCs that we refer to, and the necessary security mechanisms are introduced there as well. So when talking about FOO and IKE, we know that IKE addresses FOO's issues. But in the case of the node requirements document, the security issues either have been addressed in the relevant RFCs, or those RFCs should be reissued and corrected. Additional stuff can be extremely useful for the nodes, but it may not address any IPv6-specific issue. For instance, if we required IKE, TLS, and S/MIME, this would make sure that those are available to the IPv6 nodes, but none of them would help addressing the security issues in, say, IPv6 ND. So I guess what I am looking for is some guidance on whether this document should focus on the IPv6 specific part, or give a more general requirements. I think we need to choose between (1) "We, the IETF, think that in order to do IPv6, you need .", and (2) "We, the IETF, think that in order to do IPv6, you need and the user on a node surely needs also ." I'm fine doing it either way, but we need to agree what the scope is. > Set 2: > > >>1. Section 10.1.1 talks about "IP Forwarding Table MIB" >> The revision of this MIB document (that you refer to) has a number >> of deprecated and obsoleted objects. I think what you want (intend) >> to say is that an agent must implement those objects that are >> required as per ipForwardFullCompliance or ipForwardReadOnlyCompliance. >> >> I am also not sure that this is correct: >> Support for this MIB does not imply that IPv4 or IPv4 specific >> portions of this MIB be supported. >> Did you mean "IPv4 or IPv6 specific portions" ? I think the intent was to say that if you implement IPv6 and as a result also the forwarding table MIB, it does not follow that you also have to implement all of IPv4. >> But maybe the sentence is not needed at all. The two MODULE-COMPLIANCEs >> that I point you to above specify IP version neurtral objects! I'm glad to hear that its IP version neutral. So what happens if I create a new InetCidrRouteEntry and set inetCidrRouteDestType to "ipv4" on a box that supports only IPv6? What I would like to happen is that this would fail, and doing so would not mean that the box violates 2096bis... >>2. Similar comments/issue with Sect 10.1.2 >> I think you want to refer to CURRENT MODULE-COMPLIANCE, namely >> ipMIBCompliance2. Pls check and make sure you be specific as to what >> needs to be supported. > > > Set 3: > > >>One bigger issue, which may not be worth a Discuss, but >>something that >>IMHO should be discussed in some forum: >> >> All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub- >> resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with >> support for: >> >> - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596]; >> - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152]; >> - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 >> octets. >> >>.. I'm operationally concerned about the last SHOULD. As far as I >>know, EDNS0 is not really implemented. It does not seem to include a >>SHOULD to something that hasn't seen practical, wide-spread deployment >>already. I'd recommend removing this or rewording it to a MAY. This is very useful input. I'd go for a MAY if this is the case. Question: is it the infrastructure part, the clients, or both that do not implement EDNS0? --Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 08:52:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20067 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYmx9-0008Dw-MZ for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:04 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNDq3X8031606 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYmx9-0008Dh-Hx for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:03 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20049 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmx3-0005RD-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:51:57 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmhw-00055o-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:36:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmhw-00055f-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:36:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYmhe-00074g-7b; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:36:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYmgx-00073W-C6 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:35:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19417 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:35:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmgw-000523-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:35:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmcj-0004kS-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:30:59 -0500 Received: from c211-30-120-24.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au ([211.30.120.24] helo=drugs.dv.isc.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmci-0004jp-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:30:57 -0500 Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBNDUqDl012060; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:30:53 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org) Message-Id: <200312231330.hBNDUqDl012060@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: john.loughney@nokia.com Cc: ipv6@ietf.org From: Mark.Andrews@isc.org Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:20:37 +0200." Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:30:52 +1100 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 > Set 3: > > > One bigger issue, which may not be worth a Discuss, but > > something that > > IMHO should be discussed in some forum: > > > > All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub- > > resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with > > support for: > > > > - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596]; > > - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152]; > > - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 > > octets. > > > > .. I'm operationally concerned about the last SHOULD. As far as I > > know, EDNS0 is not really implemented. It does not seem to include a > > SHOULD to something that hasn't seen practical, wide-spread deployment > > already. I'd recommend removing this or rewording it to a MAY. Define "not really implemented". RFC 2671 was published August 1999. Production servers w/ EDNS0 were release Jan 2000. The root servers have been EDNS aware for over a year if memory serves me. There is still one holdout (B). Even the load balancer cowboys are implementing EDNS0. Their server's may not understand MX/NS/SOA/AAAA but they do understand EDNS queries. Over half the servers on the net currently talk EDNS based on the figures I have seen. The majority of the problems come from servers that fail to implement RFC 1034 by dropping EDNS queries and firewalls that either reject additional records in queries or reject UDP answers bigger than 512 octets. Retrying the query w/o EDNS on timeout addresses these. The firewall vendors now have code that is EDNS aware. Most of the servers that dropped EDNS queries were load balancers. While we still have to win the battle to get them to understand AAAA. They appear to have seen the light on EDNS. I have no problem with a SHOULD for stub resolvers. While most don't do it there is real unknowns in saying that they should do it. The caching server they are using most probably is already making EDNS queries on their behalf. Mark > John > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 08:52:41 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20087 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYmxJ-0008EF-ED for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:13 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNDqD7G031625 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:13 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYmxJ-0008E0-9q for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:13 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA20056 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmxD-0005lM-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:52:07 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmhw-00055k-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:36:22 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmhw-00055e-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:36:20 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYmhf-000753-Mq; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:36:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYmge-00070h-It for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:35:00 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA19337 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:34:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYmgc-0004vD-02 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:34:59 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYme4-0004qx-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:32:21 -0500 Received: from c211-30-120-24.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au ([211.30.120.24] helo=drugs.dv.isc.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYme3-0004qs-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 08:32:20 -0500 Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBNDWIDl012099; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:32:18 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org) Message-Id: <200312231332.hBNDWIDl012099@drugs.dv.isc.org> Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org From: Mark.Andrews@isc.org Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:30:52 +1100." Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:32:18 +1100 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 > > > Set 3: > > > > > One bigger issue, which may not be worth a Discuss, but > > > something that > > > IMHO should be discussed in some forum: > > > > > > All nodes that need to resolve names SHOULD implement stub- > > > resolver [RFC-1034] functionality, in RFC 1034 section 5.3.1 with > > > support for: > > > > > > - AAAA type Resource Records [RFC-3596]; > > > - reverse addressing in ip6.arpa using PTR records [RFC-3152]; > > > - EDNS0 [RFC-2671] to allow for DNS packet sizes larger than 512 > > > octets. > > > > > > .. I'm operationally concerned about the last SHOULD. As far as I > > > know, EDNS0 is not really implemented. It does not seem to include a > > > SHOULD to something that hasn't seen practical, wide-spread deployment > > > already. I'd recommend removing this or rewording it to a MAY. > > Define "not really implemented". > > RFC 2671 was published August 1999. > Production servers w/ EDNS0 were release Jan 2000. > The root servers have been EDNS aware for over a year if memory > serves me. There is still one holdout (B). > > Even the load balancer cowboys are implementing EDNS0. > Their server's may not understand MX/NS/SOA/AAAA but they > do understand EDNS queries. > > Over half the servers on the net currently talk EDNS based on > the figures I have seen. > > The majority of the problems come from servers that fail to > implement RFC 1034 by dropping EDNS queries and firewalls that > either reject additional records in queries or reject UDP answers > bigger than 512 octets. Retrying the query w/o EDNS on timeout > addresses these. > > The firewall vendors now have code that is EDNS aware. > Most of the servers that dropped EDNS queries were load balancers. > While we still have to win the battle to get them to understand > AAAA. They appear to have seen the light on EDNS. > > I have no problem with a SHOULD for stub resolvers. While most > don't do it there is real unknowns in saying that they should s/is real/is no real/ > do it. The caching server they are using most probably is already > making EDNS queries on their behalf. > > Mark > > > John > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org -- Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 09:59:36 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22286 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYo05-0002UK-1V for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:59:09 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNEx92s009563 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:59:09 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYo04-0002UA-RC for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:59:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA22236 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:59:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYo02-0000xZ-01 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:59:06 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYnxS-0000t0-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:56:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYnxS-0000sw-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:56:26 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYnx5-00027B-7z; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:56:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYnwE-00023m-VB for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:55:11 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA21964 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:55:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYnwC-0000ZP-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:55:08 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYnvu-0000ir-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:54:50 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYnvt-0000fw-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:54:49 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBNErhD23034; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:53:43 +0200 Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:53:43 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: Mark.Andrews@isc.org cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt In-Reply-To: <200312231330.hBNDUqDl012060@drugs.dv.isc.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 Mark.Andrews@isc.org wrote: [...] > I have no problem with a SHOULD for stub resolvers. While most > don't do it there is no real unknowns in saying that they should > do it. The caching server they are using most probably is already > making EDNS queries on their behalf. While DNS servers seem to have added support for EDNS0, the stub resolvers don't seem to be supporting at least widely (e.g., at least BSD, Linux and Win2K don't). At least looking around with tcpdump, I see *very* little UDPsize options in DNS packets, probably coming from newer DNS servers out there which have toggled on the option in their config. EDNS0 is probably a nice thing to have, but as far as I can see, generic nodes don't seem to be doing it now (which is what the doc talks about). I guess the question is about whether we want to encourage adding that support, or documenting existing, well-known practice for new implementations. If we put EDNS0 as a SHOULD, we'd probably be doing the former .. which is OK by me as long as we're doing a conscious decision on that (but my personal take is that we should stick to "known good, implemented, works" -mantra in a document like this). -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 23 10:47:32 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25171 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:47:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYokT-0004dt-Rz for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:47:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBNFl5oA017839 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:47:05 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYokT-0004de-No for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:47:05 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA25132 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:47:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYokR-0002zE-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:47:03 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYodL-0002kP-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:39:44 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYodL-0002k7-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:39:43 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYocg-00043A-36; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:39:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AYocb-00042H-2q for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:38:57 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24790 for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYocY-0002fH-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:38:54 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AYoag-0002cT-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:36:59 -0500 Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp ([202.249.10.124]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AYoag-0002cO-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:36:58 -0500 Received: from ocean.jinmei.org (unknown [3ffe:501:100f:f::6]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7CD1525D; Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:36:48 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 00:36:21 +0900 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Pekka Savola Cc: Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt In-Reply-To: References: <200312231330.hBNDUqDl012060@drugs.dv.isc.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 >>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 16:53:43 +0200 (EET), >>>>> Pekka Savola said: > While DNS servers seem to have added support for EDNS0, the stub > resolvers don't seem to be supporting at least widely (e.g., at least > BSD, Linux and Win2K don't). At least looking around with tcpdump, I > see *very* little UDPsize options in DNS packets, probably coming from > newer DNS servers out there which have toggled on the option in their > config. A minor correction: the resolver library in *BSDs libc should support for EDNS0, at least in their latest releases. EDNS0 in the resolver is disabled by default, though. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Thu Dec 25 06:36:16 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26301 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:36:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZTmP-0007uU-OF for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:35:50 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBPBZnBY030406 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:35:49 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZTmP-0007uL-Bf for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:35:49 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA26150 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:35:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZTmL-0007j9-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:35:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZTjt-0007Jj-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:33:14 -0500 Received: from [65.246.255.50] (helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZTia-00078p-05 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:31:52 -0500 Received: from optimus22.ietf.org ([132.151.6.22] helo=optimus.ietf.org) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AZTei-0003Ax-Ke for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:27:52 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZTdt-0007P1-W0; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:27:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AZTdF-0007Mu-7J for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:26:21 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA25727 for ; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:26:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZTdB-0006zB-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:26:17 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AZTbK-0006wl-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:24:23 -0500 Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp ([202.249.10.124]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AZTZR-0006jL-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 06:22:25 -0500 Received: from ocean.jinmei.org (unknown [3ffe:501:100f:1048:8d42:933c:55e1:3b31]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D004015263; Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:18:30 +0900 (JST) Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:18:29 +0900 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Jayabharathi Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: doubt regarding socket options In-Reply-To: <01cc01c3c875$d20bbfa0$2a466c6b@sisodomain.com> References: <01cc01c3c875$d20bbfa0$2a466c6b@sisodomain.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan. MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 (I've folded some long lines of the original message) >>>>> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 15:54:43 +0530, >>>>> Jayabharathi said: > Does the socket options like Destination, Hop-by-hop, and routing > header are only used for Raw sockets or needed for all other sockets > also??? I'm not sure what you meant by "needed", but: As for the receiving side: RFC3542, or at least the intention of the RFC, specifies an application should also be able to get received destination options/hop-by-hop options/routing header(s) on a UDP socket. However, it intentionally leaves the implication for a TCP socket as undefined. As for the sending side: RFC3542 specifies an application should be able to send packets with extension headers on any kinds of socket; UDP, TCP, or raw. > If they are to be implemented with the other sockets also (STREAM > and DATAGRAM ), how does applications receive and use the received > option information. Regarding a UDP socket, the usage is exactly same as that for a raw socket: use ancillary data items with recvmsg(). > In the same way how does we send the same using send / sendto. Via ancillary data items or socket options. JINMEI, Tatuya Communication Platform Lab. Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp p.s. I'd strongly recommend you to read RFC3542 first, if not yet. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 00:07:59 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09623 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:07:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaT9H-0001Ck-9J for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:07:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBS57VSN004626 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:07:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaT9G-0001CX-Gi for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:07:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09604 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:07:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaT9E-0002BO-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:07:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaT7I-00028c-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:05:29 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaT6q-000268-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:05:01 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaT5t-0000eO-Lh; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:04:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaT5G-0000di-Gg for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:03:22 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09504 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:03:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaT5E-00024Z-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:03:20 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaT3P-00022k-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:01:28 -0500 Received: from dsl092-066-068.bos1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.66.68] helo=cyteen.hactrn.net) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaT2z-0001yd-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:01:01 -0500 Received: from hactrn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cyteen.hactrn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F5612F for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:00:31 -0500 (EST) To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Weekly posting summary for ipv6@ietf.org From: Rob Austein Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:00:31 -0500 Message-Id: <20031228050031.79F5612F@cyteen.hactrn.net> Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 3 | 16.54% | 12969 | jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp 13.33% | 2 | 16.48% | 12918 | jari.arkko@kolumbus.fi 13.33% | 2 | 14.50% | 11366 | mark.andrews@isc.org 6.67% | 1 | 11.41% | 8947 | brc@zurich.ibm.com 6.67% | 1 | 8.50% | 6661 | john.loughney@nokia.com 6.67% | 1 | 6.57% | 5150 | jayabharathi@samsung.com 6.67% | 1 | 5.89% | 4615 | tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk 6.67% | 1 | 5.45% | 4274 | sra+ipng@hactrn.net 6.67% | 1 | 5.37% | 4213 | pekkas@netcore.fi 6.67% | 1 | 4.80% | 3765 | chema@chema.homelinux.org 6.67% | 1 | 4.48% | 3511 | ipv6@c753173126e0bc8b057a22829880cf26.nosense.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 15 |100.00% | 78389 | Total Grunchweather Associates provides this automatic summary on an at-whim basis at the request of the IPv6 WG chairs. Your mileage may vary. We decline responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors. If this script produces broken output, you get to keep both pieces. -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 05:02:31 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28413 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:02:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaXjt-0004TG-1Y for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:01:56 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBSA1Y0B017186 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:01:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaXjo-0004Sk-ST for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:01:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28388 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:01:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaXjf-0001ER-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:01:23 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaXhn-0001CL-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:59:27 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaXgy-0001Aj-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:58:36 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaXgS-00049l-JD; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:58:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaXft-00049E-2u for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:57:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA28236 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:57:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaXfp-00019T-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:57:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaXdy-00017l-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:55:31 -0500 Received: from bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se ([192.36.125.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaXdF-00014f-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 04:54:45 -0500 Received: from bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBS9sDI9078711; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:54:13 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mansaxel@bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se) Received: (from mansaxel@localhost) by bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se (8.12.9p2/8.12.3/Submit) id hBS9sCXL078710; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:54:12 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:54:12 +0100 From: Mans Nilsson To: Pekka Savola Cc: Mark.Andrews@isc.org, john.loughney@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Message-ID: <20031228095412.GD28436@sunet.se> References: <200312231330.hBNDUqDl012060@drugs.dv.isc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="g7w8+K/95kPelPD2" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-URL: http://vvv.besserwisser.org X-Purpose: More of everything NOW! X-synced-from: Pilsnet Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 --g7w8+K/95kPelPD2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Da= te: Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 04:53:43PM +0200 Quoting Pekka Savola (pekkas@netc= ore.fi): > I guess the question is about whether we want to > encourage adding that support, or documenting existing, well-known > practice for new implementations. If we put EDNS0 as a SHOULD, we'd > probably be doing the former .. which is OK by me as long as we're > doing a conscious decision on that (but my personal take is that we > should stick to "known good, implemented, works" -mantra in a document > like this). We know that EDNS0 works. Mark did a good description of the present state. I see nothing to the contrary. It is A Good Thing to endorse EDNS0 in a document like this, because it could speed up deployment.=20 --=20 M=E5ns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE Now I think I just reached the state of HYPERTENSION that comes JUST BEFORE you see the TOTAL at the SAFEWAY CHECKOUT COUNTER! --g7w8+K/95kPelPD2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/7qhE02/pMZDM1cURAikOAKCLZGT3uyzFBJUjqvIgYuSIL9mu5ACgnCUg QwrhBoRbH67pPLoIJPXNYxU= =fT8u -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --g7w8+K/95kPelPD2-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 06:46:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00771 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:46:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaZMU-0007Mm-1n for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:45:34 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBSBjYeP028312 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:45:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaZMT-0007MZ-RC for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:45:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00732 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:45:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaZMP-0003rs-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:45:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaZKf-0003oX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:43:42 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaZJO-0003kh-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:42:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaZJ3-00073W-P3; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:42:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AaZIX-00072X-66 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:41:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA00569 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:41:24 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaZIT-0003gO-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:41:25 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AaZGc-0003dL-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:39:30 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com ([131.228.20.27]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AaZEr-0003aG-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:37:42 -0500 Received: from esvir03nok.nokia.com (esvir03nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.35]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hBSBbgU22507 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:37:42 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir03nok.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:37:42 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh002.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:37:41 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:37:40 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Thread-Index: AcPNKKYkQzvJAfpvSUammbbx9AafZgADgxTw To: , Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2003 11:37:41.0187 (UTC) FILETIME=[00813930:01C3CD37] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mans & Pekka, > > I guess the question is about whether we want to > > encourage adding that support, or documenting existing, well-known > > practice for new implementations. If we put EDNS0 as a SHOULD, we'd > > probably be doing the former .. which is OK by me as long as we're > > doing a conscious decision on that (but my personal take is that we > > should stick to "known good, implemented, works" -mantra in=20 > a document > > like this). >=20 > We know that EDNS0 works. Mark did a good description of the present > state. I see nothing to the contrary. It is A Good Thing to endorse > EDNS0 in a document like this, because it could speed up deployment.=20 I am not an expert with EDNS0, but reviewing this thread, it seems that the client support for EDNS0 is what is lacking, most servers support it already. What I think this means is that a SHOULD in the requirements shouldn't cause operational difficulties. If I am correct, then, what would be the problem with listing EDNS0 as a SHOULD? If we do this, we may get more clients to support EDNS0. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Sun Dec 28 08:52:22 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02928 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:52:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AabKj-0001vg-N1 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:51:54 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBSDprCi007413 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:51:53 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AabKj-0001vU-Fm for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:51:53 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02912 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:51:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AabKd-0007OL-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:51:47 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AabEk-0007G3-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:45:43 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AabDU-0007C6-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:44:24 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AabD8-0001Vh-BU; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:44:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AabCf-0001Um-C1 for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:43:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA02802 for ; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:43:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AabCe-00079y-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:43:32 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AabAr-00077F-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:41:42 -0500 Received: from bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se ([192.36.125.26]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AabAA-00073n-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 08:40:58 -0500 Received: from bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se (8.12.9p2/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hBSDeRI9086484; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:40:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from mansaxel@bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se) Received: (from mansaxel@localhost) by bardisk.pilsnet.sunet.se (8.12.9p2/8.12.3/Submit) id hBSDeQ7s086483; Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:40:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:40:26 +0100 From: Mans Nilsson To: john.loughney@nokia.com Cc: pekkas@netcore.fi, Mark.Andrews@isc.org, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Message-ID: <20031228134026.GF28436@sunet.se> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TeJTyD9hb8KJN2Jy" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-URL: http://vvv.besserwisser.org X-Purpose: More of everything NOW! X-synced-from: Pilsnet Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HOT_NASTY autolearn=no version=2.60 --TeJTyD9hb8KJN2Jy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt Da= te: Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 01:37:40PM +0200 Quoting john.loughney@nokia.com (= john.loughney@nokia.com): > If I > am correct, then, what would be the problem with listing EDNS0 > as a SHOULD? =20 None significant I can think of, though I'd like to hear other opinions.=20 --=20 M=E5ns Nilsson Systems Specialist +46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE YOW!! What should the entire human race DO?? Consume a fifth of CHIVAS REGAL, ski NUDE down MT. EVEREST, and have a wild SEX WEEKEND! --TeJTyD9hb8KJN2Jy Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/7t1K02/pMZDM1cURAnKZAKCXTkTtoMCJedxPQS7o9zBY4YOJLgCghIho tv2buwt1Is3VFYgWHBkYpcI= =Kvt5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TeJTyD9hb8KJN2Jy-- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 09:13:35 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23412 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:13:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbKcM-0007SF-7c for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:13:06 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUED6Qd028649 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:13:06 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbKcL-0007S0-Vn for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:13:06 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23403 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:13:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbKcK-0000Ah-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:13:04 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbKaF-000031-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:10:55 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbKZJ-0007jX-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:09:57 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbKYQ-00075W-Ey; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:09:02 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbKY5-00074k-ID for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:08:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA23223 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:08:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbKY3-0007e2-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:08:39 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbKVF-0007VC-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:05:45 -0500 Received: from netcore.fi ([193.94.160.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbKQh-0007Ka-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:01:03 -0500 Received: from localhost (pekkas@localhost) by netcore.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hBUDxts23590; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:59:55 +0200 Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:59:55 +0200 (EET) From: Pekka Savola To: john.loughney@nokia.com cc: mansaxel@sunet.se, , Subject: RE: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > > We know that EDNS0 works. Mark did a good description of the present > > state. I see nothing to the contrary. It is A Good Thing to endorse > > EDNS0 in a document like this, because it could speed up deployment. > > I am not an expert with EDNS0, but reviewing this thread, it seems > that the client support for EDNS0 is what is lacking, most servers > support it already. What I think this means is that a SHOULD in > the requirements shouldn't cause operational difficulties. If I > am correct, then, what would be the problem with listing EDNS0 > as a SHOULD? If we do this, we may get more clients to support > EDNS0. As practically zero stub resolvers enable EDNS0 by default (I don't know of any) and only a few implement it at all, I think it is premature to say that we know it "just plain works" (without any adverse effects etc.). I don't think we have much real deployment experience, from the node perspective, yet. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 12:06:48 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28890 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbNJz-0003xG-OY for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:20 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUH6JPI015202 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:19 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbNJz-0003x7-IF for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28781 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNJy-0005Ss-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:06:18 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNI3-0005N4-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:04:19 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNGI-0005HE-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:02:30 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbNF1-0003Cp-OK; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:01:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbNEM-00034w-Uq for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:00:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA28534 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:00:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNEL-0005BG-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:00:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNBJ-00050U-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:57:22 -0500 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbN7W-0004pd-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:53:26 -0500 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e34.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id hBUGqJ6t321824; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:52:19 -0500 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.82]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id hBUGqIDb089148; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:52:19 -0700 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id hBUGq4Gd010316; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:52:04 -0500 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id hBUGq4CY010312; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:52:04 -0500 Message-Id: <200312301652.hBUGq4CY010312@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Jari Arkko cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Path MTU in node-requirements [was Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt ] In-Reply-To: Message from jari.arkko@kolumbus.fi of "Tue, 23 Dec 2003 14:46:20 +0200." <3FE8391C.6060407@kolumbus.fi> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 11:52:04 -0500 From: Thomas Narten Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Jari Arkko writes: > john.loughney@nokia.com wrote: > >>I'm astonished that Path MTU is a MAY -- I had thought it was > >>a MUST. I'd really like some more text explaining what some > >>of the many exceptions are that are alluded to here. > It follows RFC 2460, which states: > It is strongly recommended that IPv6 nodes implement Path MTU > Discovery [RFC-1981], in order to discover and take advantage of path > MTUs greater than 1280 octets. However, a minimal IPv6 > implementation (e.g., in a boot ROM) may simply restrict itself to > sending packets no larger than 1280 octets, and omit implementation > of Path MTU Discovery. Seems to me, given the above wording, 2460 says Path MTU is a SHOULD, not a MAY. Note that the MAY is about _not_ implementing it (in some situations), not a "MAY" implement it in some subset of the comment cases. I.e, if node-requirements says MAY, I think that is a downgrade from the SHOULD in 2460 as quoted above. I don't think this document should be doing that. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 12:50:56 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00948 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:56 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbO0i-0006IS-SM for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:29 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUHoSUq024204 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:28 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbO0i-0006IJ-N9 for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:28 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00915 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbO0g-0007iZ-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:26 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNyw-0007e1-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:48:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNxZ-0007a6-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:47:15 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbNxN-0005wF-Bc; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:47:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbNx9-0005ve-AH for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:46:47 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA00737 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:46:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNx7-0007X1-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:46:45 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNvf-0007Q2-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:45:16 -0500 Received: from e1.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.101]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbNtp-0007Ao-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:43:21 -0500 Received: from northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (northrelay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.206]) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/NS PXFA) with ESMTP id hBUHgmKc360096; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:42:48 -0500 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (d01av02.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.216]) by northrelay04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id hBUHgmfV114730; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:42:48 -0500 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id hBUHgXGd010476; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:42:33 -0500 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id hBUHgWUl010471; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:42:33 -0500 Message-Id: <200312301742.hBUHgWUl010471@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Mans Nilsson cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, pekkas@netcore.fi, Mark.Andrews@isc.org, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt In-Reply-To: Message from mansaxel@sunet.se of "Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:40:26 +0100." <20031228134026.GF28436@sunet.se> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:42:32 -0500 From: Thomas Narten Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 > > If I > > am correct, then, what would be the problem with listing EDNS0 > > as a SHOULD? =20 > None significant I can think of, though I'd like to hear other opinions.=20 Perhaps the question to ask is whether support of EDNS0 is needed to make IPv6 work well enough. The thing that EDNS0 fixes that is of relevance here is the small packet size problem. In DNS, packets are restricted (by default) to be 512 bytes. With IPv6's bigger addresses, packet overflows are more likely to happen. If we expect this is going to be a problem, then the right thing to do is recommend use of EDNS0, even if it isn't widely deployed yet (and for ipv4, the packet size is less of an issue, hence less motivation/need for it there). Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 12:57:11 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01367 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:57:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbO6m-0006xk-3E for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:56:44 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUHuiEm026758 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:56:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbO6l-0006xV-Ui for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:56:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01364 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:56:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbO6k-0000RP-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:56:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbO5C-0000MT-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:55:07 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbO4C-0000E4-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:54:04 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbO49-0006aR-V5; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:54:01 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbO3C-0006Zj-2U for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:53:02 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01078 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:52:46 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbO2y-00006h-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:52:48 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbO17-0007mw-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:50:53 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbO0E-0007ga-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:49:58 -0500 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.2) with ESMTP id hBUHnRJh084594; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:49:27 -0500 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.193.82]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id hBUHnRDb096304; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:49:27 -0700 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.5) with ESMTP id hBUHnCGd010507; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:49:12 -0500 Received: from rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (narten@localhost) by rotala.raleigh.ibm.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id hBUHnBHd010502; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:49:11 -0500 Message-Id: <200312301749.hBUHnBHd010502@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> To: Peter Lei cc: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino , Erik.Nordmark@sun.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: getnameinfo and various protocol types In-Reply-To: Message from peter.lei@ieee.org of "Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:10:43 CST." <3FDA9143.8080408@ieee.org> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 12:49:11 -0500 From: Thomas Narten Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60 Peter Lei writes: > >>But this reminds me; doesn't SCTP use the same port number space as TCP? Not anymore. > > basically the same space, but they do have separate entries on > > /etc/services and http://www.iana.org/assignments/port-numbers. > > for instance, http is only defined for http/tcp and http/udp at this > > point of time. only a limited number of sctp services are defined on > > IANA assignment page. > > > > and since we have "foo/sctp" on /etc/services, we need to pass > > "sctp" as 2nd arg to getservbyport(3). > Actualy, RFC2960 explictily states that "All current TCP ports shall be > automatically reserved in the SCTP port address space." in the IANA > considerations section. This was updated, but not documented well. Because it is not clear that an application that runs over TCP can also run over SCTP (and vice versa) without some application-specific considerations, automatically allocating ports from both spaces for an application was deemed not-so-good an idea. So at this point, the SCTP and TCP port spaces are not shared. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 13:08:58 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01763 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:08:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbOIA-0007oD-P1 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:08:31 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUI8UEI030016 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:08:30 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbOIA-0007nv-6H for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:08:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01749 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:08:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOI8-0000sd-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:08:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOGF-0000pt-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:06:32 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOFS-0000n8-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:05:42 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbOEq-0007CK-Aw; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:05:04 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbOEJ-0007B7-Mv for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:04:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA01670 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:04:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOEH-0000lU-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:04:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOCW-0000iQ-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:02:41 -0500 Received: from darkstar.iprg.nokia.com ([205.226.5.69]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbOC4-0000eY-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:02:12 -0500 Received: (from root@localhost) by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0-DARKSTAR) id hBUI1PQ08047; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:01:25 -0800 X-mProtect: <200312301801> Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging Protection Received: from ftemplin.iprg.nokia.com (205.226.2.67, claiming to be "iprg.nokia.com") by darkstar.iprg.nokia.com smtpd7Fv71Z; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:01:24 PST Message-ID: <3FF1BD6A.9070205@iprg.nokia.com> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:01:14 -0800 From: Fred Templin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Narten CC: Mans Nilsson , john.loughney@nokia.com, pekkas@netcore.fi, Mark.Andrews@isc.org, ipv6@ietf.org, ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt References: <200312301742.hBUHgWUl010471@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Thomas, I'm just returning from vacation and catching up, but it seems to me that the packet size issue could become important if we expect that the DNS will return many AAAA, A, etc. records for some FQDNs. Are there any limits on the number of RRs per FQDN that may be stored in the DNS? And, is EDNS0 essential to support query responses when the size would exceed 512 bytes? Thanks - Fred ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com Thomas Narten wrote: >>>If I >>>am correct, then, what would be the problem with listing EDNS0 >>>as a SHOULD? =20 >>> >>> > > > >>None significant I can think of, though I'd like to hear other opinions.=20 >> >> > >Perhaps the question to ask is whether support of EDNS0 is needed to >make IPv6 work well enough. The thing that EDNS0 fixes that is of >relevance here is the small packet size problem. In DNS, packets are >restricted (by default) to be 512 bytes. With IPv6's bigger addresses, >packet overflows are more likely to happen. If we expect this is going >to be a problem, then the right thing to do is recommend use of EDNS0, >even if it isn't widely deployed yet (and for ipv4, the packet size is >less of an issue, hence less motivation/need for it there). > >Thomas > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >ipv6@ietf.org >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 16:01:03 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08691 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:01:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQyg-0004yz-LH for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:00:35 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBUL0YJ9019153 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:00:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQyg-0004yq-Gw for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:00:34 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA08656 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:00:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQyf-00000I-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:00:33 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQwm-0007kU-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:58:37 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQvr-0007hS-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:57:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQvE-0004Xn-Pd; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:57:00 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbQuj-0004Wp-PP for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:56:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA08485 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:56:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQui-0007f3-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:56:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQsq-0007c7-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:54:32 -0500 Received: from p2.piuha.net ([131.160.192.2]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbQr0-0007Z1-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:52:38 -0500 Received: from kolumbus.fi (p3.piuha.net [131.160.192.3]) by p2.piuha.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E374D6A904; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:52:30 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <3FF1E549.1090104@kolumbus.fi> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:51:21 +0200 From: Jari Arkko User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thomas Narten Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Path MTU in node-requirements [was Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt ] References: <200312301652.hBUGq4CY010312@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200312301652.hBUGq4CY010312@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thomas, > Seems to me, given the above wording, 2460 says Path MTU is a SHOULD, > not a MAY. Note that the MAY is about _not_ implementing it (in some > situations), not a "MAY" implement it in some subset of the comment > cases. > > I.e, if node-requirements says MAY, I think that is a downgrade from > the SHOULD in 2460 as quoted above. I don't think this document should > be doing that. I agree that the node requirements document should follow what 2460 says. Taking a new look at a the text, it does indeed sound more like a "SHOULD normally implement but MAY not implement in some cases". RECOMMENDED is a synonym for SHOULD, and upper/lower case usually (?) should not matter when interpreting protocol requirements. Suggested node requirements text change: 4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981 Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. It is expected that most implementations will indeed support this, although the possible exception cases are sufficient that the used of "SHOULD" is not justified. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and reassembly. => 4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981 Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid large packets. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet fragmentation and reassembly. --Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Tue Dec 30 16:49:00 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10455 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:49:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRj5-0006g0-VY for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:48:33 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBULmV7f025658 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:48:31 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRj5-0006fl-OT for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:48:31 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10339 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:48:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRj3-0001Hc-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:48:29 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRhG-0001Es-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:46:39 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRfs-0001C3-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:45:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRfj-0006MN-HJ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:45:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbRfC-0006L1-MX for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:44:30 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA10234 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:44:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRfA-0001A0-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:44:28 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRdL-00017I-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:42:36 -0500 Received: from c211-30-120-24.carlnfd2.nsw.optusnet.com.au ([211.30.120.24] helo=drugs.dv.isc.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbRc2-00014Q-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Dec 2003 16:41:15 -0500 Received: from drugs.dv.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by drugs.dv.isc.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hBULf7Dl051652; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:41:08 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from marka@drugs.dv.isc.org) Message-Id: <200312302141.hBULf7Dl051652@drugs.dv.isc.org> To: Fred Templin Cc: Thomas Narten , Mans Nilsson , john.loughney@nokia.com, pekkas@netcore.fi, ipv6@ietf.org From: Mark.Andrews@isc.org Subject: Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Dec 2003 10:01:14 -0800." <3FF1BD6A.9070205@iprg.nokia.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:41:07 +1100 Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 > Hello Thomas, > > I'm just returning from vacation and catching up, but it seems > to me that the packet size issue could become important if we > expect that the DNS will return many AAAA, A, etc. records > for some FQDNs. Are there any limits on the number of RRs > per FQDN that may be stored in the DNS? No. Theoretically you can fall all the way back to using a zone transfer to get the data you want if it is too big for a single DNS/TCP message. There have been a number of proposals to allow a multi-message DNS/TCP response regardless of query type. AXFR/IXFR should not have been a special cases. > And, is EDNS0 > essential to support query responses when the size would > exceed 512 bytes? Essential. No. Highly desirable. Yes. EDNS's larger UDP size is to try to reduce the number of times a client will have to fall back to TCP. > Thanks - Fred > ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com > > Thomas Narten wrote: > > >>>If I > >>>am correct, then, what would be the problem with listing EDNS0 > >>>as a SHOULD? =20 > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >>None significant I can think of, though I'd like to hear other opinions.=20 > >> > >> > > > >Perhaps the question to ask is whether support of EDNS0 is needed to > >make IPv6 work well enough. The thing that EDNS0 fixes that is of > >relevance here is the small packet size problem. In DNS, packets are > >restricted (by default) to be 512 bytes. With IPv6's bigger addresses, > >packet overflows are more likely to happen. If we expect this is going > >to be a problem, then the right thing to do is recommend use of EDNS0, > >even if it isn't widely deployed yet (and for ipv4, the packet size is > >less of an issue, hence less motivation/need for it there). > > > >Thomas > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >ipv6@ietf.org > >Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > -- Mark Andrews, Internet Software Consortium 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: Mark.Andrews@isc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 01:35:13 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00766 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:35:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbZwK-00075v-E8 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:34:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBV6YiTb027271 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:34:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbZwK-00075m-9k for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:34:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00741 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:34:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbZwH-0003rP-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:34:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbZuO-0003nj-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:32:45 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbZtD-0003kR-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:31:31 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbZsl-0006iK-Js; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:31:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbZsT-0006h5-RW for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:30:46 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA00610 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:30:44 -0500 (EST) From: john.loughney@nokia.com Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbZsQ-0003j4-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:30:42 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbZqa-0003gO-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:28:49 -0500 Received: from mgw-x4.nokia.com ([131.228.20.27]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbZqF-0003cs-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 01:28:27 -0500 Received: from esvir03nok.nokia.com (esvir03nokt.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.143.35]) by mgw-x4.nokia.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id hBV6SRU13031 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:28:27 +0200 (EET) Received: from esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com (unverified) by esvir03nok.nokia.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.5) with ESMTP id ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:28:27 +0200 Received: from esebe023.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.115]) by esebh001.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6747); Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:28:27 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Path MTU in node-requirements [was Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt ] Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:28:27 +0200 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Path MTU in node-requirements [was Re: FW: Evaluation of: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt ] Thread-Index: AcPPFtmf1CJcjSbgR0eILojhb2LN8gAUFN3w To: , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2003 06:28:27.0204 (UTC) FILETIME=[4CB55840:01C3CF67] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.3 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jari, As this point was raised several times on the list, I think your text should cover the concerns covered. I agree that 2460 essentially requires a SHOULD in the node-requirements. thanks, John > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@kolumbus.fi] > Sent: 30 December, 2003 22:51 > To: Thomas Narten > Cc: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki); ipv6@ietf.org > Subject: Re: Path MTU in node-requirements [was Re: FW: Evaluation of: > draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-07.txt ] >=20 >=20 > Thomas, >=20 > > Seems to me, given the above wording, 2460 says Path MTU is=20 > a SHOULD, > > not a MAY. Note that the MAY is about _not_ implementing it (in some > > situations), not a "MAY" implement it in some subset of the comment > > cases. > >=20 > > I.e, if node-requirements says MAY, I think that is a downgrade from > > the SHOULD in 2460 as quoted above. I don't think this=20 > document should > > be doing that. >=20 > I agree that the node requirements document should follow what 2460 > says. >=20 > Taking a new look at a the text, it does indeed sound more like a > "SHOULD normally implement but MAY not implement in some cases". >=20 > RECOMMENDED is a synonym for SHOULD, and upper/lower case usually (?) > should not matter when interpreting protocol requirements. >=20 > Suggested node requirements text change: >=20 > 4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981 >=20 > Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] MAY be supported. It is=20 > expected that > most implementations will indeed support this, although=20 > the possible > exception cases are sufficient that the used of "SHOULD" is not > justified. The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet > fragmentation and reassembly. >=20 > =3D> >=20 > 4.3.1 Path MTU Discovery - RFC1981 >=20 > Path MTU Discovery [RFC-1981] SHOULD be supported, though minimal > implementations MAY choose to not support it and avoid=20 > large packets. > The rules in RFC 2460 MUST be followed for packet=20 > fragmentation and > reassembly. >=20 > --Jari >=20 >=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- From exim@www1.ietf.org Wed Dec 31 07:55:14 2003 Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11270 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:55:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abfs4-0006t3-UZ for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:54:45 -0500 Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hBVCsi5Y026467 for ipv6-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:54:44 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abfs4-0006so-LC for ipv6-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:54:44 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11247 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:54:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abfs3-0003Ql-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:54:43 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Abfq9-0003N7-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:52:46 -0500 Received: from [132.151.1.19] (helo=optimus.ietf.org) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abfoz-0003L4-00 for ipv6-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:51:33 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AbfoV-0006ab-PW; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:51:03 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Abfo9-0006Zv-Rc for ipv6@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:50:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA11175 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:50:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Abfo8-0003Jz-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:50:41 -0500 Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AbfmJ-0003II-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:48:47 -0500 Received: from ns.digi-data.com ([209.94.197.193] helo=digi-data.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AbfkR-0003Df-00 for ipv6@ietf.org; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 07:46:51 -0500 Received: from NEO.digi-data.com ([10.1.1.16]) by odin.digi-data.com with ESMTP id <119220>; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:46:01 -0400 Received: from digi-data.com ([10.1.1.31]) by NEO.digi-data.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:49:25 -0400 Message-ID: <3FF2C6A3.2050400@digi-data.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:52:51 -0400 From: Robert Honore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Test Mesg. Pls Ignore Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Dec 2003 12:49:25.0306 (UTC) FILETIME=[8532E9A0:01C3CF9C] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ipv6-admin@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-admin@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12 Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mesg sent Wed 31 Dec 2003 1252 GMT -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------