From tmacaulay@2keys.ca Fri Jun 1 05:52:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10B1911E81B4 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:52:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bx12WhLERoug for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.2keys.ca (unknown [72.1.200.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 639E411E8176 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.2keys.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A5E9280CC4; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:43:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at 2keys.ca Received: from mail.2keys.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.2keys.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BoJg-gzBz8+s; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:43:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.0.0.2] (out-on-172.wireless.telus.com [207.219.69.172]) by mail.2keys.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 63ED2280CC3; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 08:43:52 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 08:52:12 -0400 Subject: Reputation intelligence problem statement From: Tyson Macaulay To: ipv6 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Reputation intelligence problem statement Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Dave Mcmahon , Peder Jungck X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:52:31 -0000 A new INFORMATIONAL DRAFT is available for comments from interested members: Title: Internet reputation intelligence: Problem Statement Abstract: This draft represent the initial public discussion of the value of proactive, reputation intelligence on the Internet and some of the challenges associated with these services that may be partially addressed through novel use of IPv6 features and functions. This document is intended to outline the concept of Internet reputation intelligence, the benefits it brings to network elements and endpoints. This draft also addresses the challenges associated with legacy security systems based on threat-signatures, and some of * [Txt version ]=20 http://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-macaulay-6man-reputation-intelligence-00. txt=20 * [Pdf version ]=20 http://www.ietf.org/staging/draft-macaulay-6man-reputation-intelligence-00. pdf -- Tyson Macaulay, BA CISSP CISA VP =AD Technology 2Keys Security Solutions Phone: +1 613 292 9132 email: tmacaulay@2keys.ca From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri Jun 1 06:45:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C84011E81C5; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 06:45:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.489 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.489 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DWFWJVm6YYuQ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 06:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5310711E81E3; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 06:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Subject: Last Call: (Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)) to Proposed Standard X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120601134456.27787.88370.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 06:44:56 -0700 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:45:15 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to consider the following document: - 'Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-15. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document describes two algorithms, one for source address selection and one for destination address selection. The algorithms specify default behavior for all Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) implementations. They do not override choices made by applications or upper-layer protocols, nor do they preclude the development of more advanced mechanisms for address selection. The two algorithms share a common context, including an optional mechanism for allowing administrators to provide policy that can override the default behavior. In dual stack implementations, the destination address selection algorithm can consider both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses - depending on the available source addresses, the algorithm might prefer IPv6 addresses over IPv4 addresses, or vice-versa. Default address selection as defined in this specification applies to all IPv6 nodes, including both hosts and routers. This document obsoletes RFC 3484. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From kauer@biplane.com.au Fri Jun 1 23:14:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDAAD11E808C for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:14:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JAM4dnBovXsk for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:14:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [IPv6:2001:44b8:8060:ff02:300:1:6:5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB91F11E8081 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:14:04 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApIBAF+uyU+WZX+7/2dsb2JhbAANOIVOsheBMwJfE60pki6QD4ESA6AZh2o Received: from eth4284.nsw.adsl.internode.on.net (HELO [192.168.1.200]) ([150.101.127.187]) by ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 02 Jun 2012 15:44:03 +0930 Subject: List of test IPv6 addresses? From: Karl Auer To: IETF IPv6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-kksYwtvEn73aUHEzfYKg" Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:13:59 +1000 Message-ID: <1338617639.3307.4.camel@karl> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 06:14:07 -0000 --=-kksYwtvEn73aUHEzfYKg Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I seem to remember seeing, some time ago, a list of lots and lots of test IPv6 addresses. That is, IPv6 addresses that could be fed into programs to check whether they were properly interpreted. For a project I am currently working on it would be great not to have to generate all those fiddly test cases myself, apart from the fact that I would certainly miss some quirky ones. So does anyone know where I might have seen this list? It may have been in the source code to something, or perhaps even someone else's unit tests. Yours hopefully, K. --=20 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Karl Auer (kauer@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer GPG fingerprint: AE1D 4868 6420 AD9A A698 5251 1699 7B78 4EEE 6017 Old fingerprint: DA41 51B1 1481 16E1 F7E2 B2E9 3007 14ED 5736 F687 --=-kksYwtvEn73aUHEzfYKg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iF4EABEIAAYFAk/JryEACgkQFpl7eE7uYBeD3gD/fRk7A4luWSbEU1dthtUP/8gR deRrv7mUEdsuLfGn4YkBAJ3qFZNxOb2HdCFx3ORn1MeG3fdFKNya5gIHldKMonmu =ppxt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-kksYwtvEn73aUHEzfYKg-- From jeroen@unfix.org Sat Jun 2 07:27:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFAAA21F8534 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:27:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.699, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tUazLwUU3i4n for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from icaras.de.unfix.org (icaras.de.unfix.org [IPv6:2a01:4f8:130:74c1:5054:ff:fec4:f7d4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BED821F8525 for ; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:27:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.183.234] (dsl092-002-166.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.92.2.166]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by icaras.de.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23159801C812; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 16:26:47 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=unfix.org; s=DKIM2009; t=1338647219; bh=KfoVpcGx2wC7Ee2+cGzyEgL3Wlb9XeoFHNpmYtYoa/4=; h=References:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Message-Id:Cc:From:Subject:Date:To; b=Gw2OW8+wKEKmxcXhc8lhM7mmKC4rA3RyLN8Et3NKEFejb99Y+H7VklCiJTLg7VCcX kE8OiLq8LNkH/KHceosBj16dlHLxSi2gjoxFKQYaWLtH5cJJwi/vYRXR3wJ1zSUWj4 Tk8SOAgcSR+ywhargmh09tFgdrU8qMvbDKImCTXieWet3/3Vr898orTGDjpxGLIcFH R6jCBnmXAkul38Hg31DrtFwX4JnEF03mvMZqp68tLsZpAnbb7ugSPwuo2lQ3iqn5up HEnoIVizRx3iWk0SCy8vCNjWfAZvkr7ctRg/MnxPqqWBWp2SHvhpk85OSF8j72CKG/ gEe2Kl0Hez2Dg== References: <1338617639.3307.4.camel@karl> In-Reply-To: <1338617639.3307.4.camel@karl> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <934481C9-F93C-4705-8EFE-0120645F2DEC@unfix.org> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Jeroen Massar Subject: Re: List of test IPv6 addresses? Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:26:55 -0700 To: Karl Auer Cc: IETF IPv6 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:27:05 -0000 On 1 Jun 2012, at 23:13, Karl Auer wrote: > I seem to remember seeing, some time ago, a list of lots and lots of > test IPv6 addresses. That is, IPv6 addresses that could be fed into > programs to check whether they were properly interpreted. Just use getaddrinfo() and all should be fine as then the OS handles it whic= h hopefully follows the rules. >=20 Greets, Jeroen From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Jun 3 22:48:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AED8621F887A; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:48:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.582 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.582 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.017, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3D0PbhSpPKzG; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:48:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FC521F8846; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 22:48:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-lineid-05.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120604054840.21389.73836.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 22:48:40 -0700 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:48:40 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the= IETF. Title : The Line Identification Destination Option Author(s) : Suresh Krishnan Alan Kavanagh Balazs Varga Sven Ooghe Erik Nordmark Filename : draft-ietf-6man-lineid-05.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2012-06-03 In Ethernet based aggregation networks, several subscriber premises may be logically connected to the same interface of an edge router. This document proposes a method for the edge router to identify the subscriber premises using the contents of the received Router Solicitation messages. The applicability is limited to broadband network deployment scenarios where multiple user ports are mapped to the same virtual interface on the Edge Router. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-lineid-05.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-lineid-05.txt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-lineid/ From john.mann@monash.edu Sun Jun 3 23:55:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6350B21F863F for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 23:55:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L3BuLSj6+BbH for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 23:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys009aog121.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog121.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4341321F8623 for ; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 23:55:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob121.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT8xb09nV6Ezsh/E+G9KEWAl5xLUwQXHl@postini.com; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 23:55:16 PDT Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3so6338452obb.25 for ; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 23:55:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=gRXnogTQzGsfoDAti4/gMf1jDBCj9N+4gAlEEQFc12o=; b=WyvM9DqtkCfuXDhmWB8pJUJporXmO5e7E0amdZ8Ugdck6dwavomu3BDUVEL0HR2kWX sF0yyyFAq3M3L6FvZzYPE/zhhEAYUEFIY8WrjqjJOPouTNUj4iWVwxP6VjCays2bcgLT uGJVZ6FLDNea4/mb9CowfkvxG/3Im8Y+GSPAhr1Wwe6kuxto1QwYjatRJu+5KFqgWf+n sMj10LflB74TTNkhAlbAZZabkg3RHlnXAIvX7f5feToearR79kNRTPborDmCCDn1wczB qX7rmLn9ml5BGmeabN3G2zXXiG7P0Ff0wjDMwzgnZJ45coVTE6G8mOo+P1sP8B9DByO8 v37A== Received: by 10.60.2.3 with SMTP id 3mr10940200oeq.29.1338792915089; Sun, 03 Jun 2012 23:55:15 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.55.135 with HTTP; Sun, 3 Jun 2012 23:54:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1338617639.3307.4.camel@karl> References: <1338617639.3307.4.camel@karl> From: John Mann Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:54:54 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: List of test IPv6 addresses? To: Karl Auer Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb205f221bacb04c1a00486 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmQwu8MMdHOEJbS4+tzQZPMJqw+muTZ8Tr/xS3kjp4EY0tpmS9f0lU7OoyDjOE0RVmdFE+F Cc: IETF IPv6 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 06:55:17 -0000 --e89a8fb205f221bacb04c1a00486 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi, On 2 June 2012 16:13, Karl Auer wrote: > I seem to remember seeing, some time ago, a list of lots and lots of > test IPv6 addresses. That is, IPv6 addresses that could be fed into > programs to check whether they were properly interpreted. > > For a project I am currently working on it would be great not to have to > generate all those fiddly test cases myself, apart from the fact that I > would certainly miss some quirky ones. > > So does anyone know where I might have seen this list? It may have been > in the source code to something, or perhaps even someone else's unit > tests. > How about Net-IPv6Addr from CPAN? Download from http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/T/TM/TMONROE/Net-IPv6Addr-0.2.tar.gz or browse test cases at http://cpansearch.perl.org/src/TMONROE/Net-IPv6Addr-0.2/t/ John --e89a8fb205f221bacb04c1a00486 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

On 2 June 2012 16:13, Karl Auer <= kauer@biplane.com.au> wrote:
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/auth= ors/id/T/TM/TMONROE/Net-IPv6Addr-0.2.tar.gz

=A0 =A0 John
--e89a8fb205f221bacb04c1a00486-- From jitenshah18@gmail.com Mon Jun 4 01:27:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB9321F87B0 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:27:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1MA5gY+LsN82 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808C721F87AF for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbeh20 with SMTP id eh20so8128817obb.31 for ; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=HrJtE91BW2axW1DpJiqcaolJXbjGuGYcbYOZ5opt1NI=; b=zXrPnb5rCrOThBcti+y4BZoBo1vhCuV6+q2Iwumxcu77gPCcgjNbgWCq19+bAU3qk2 fIAVmRnJDZUfWO0XcK99mRvBSLL2oliH/+4v0rXjfXpKelmh8hwzaSwSIZYKAjNtkJZu HH7LEngDmM18ULSx+IOahIv7lzTSopunBGDiOQu0MveNvdmnEwwtqNdArHMX8vSfXQuA BWn+crznbowuDMoNQRwGLX9e2GK9v6Vz2ZTwFRng3JSZxV5h6+CEhDiJigabnhil1YHT sSDf3KFJLPGqUCveSNMW1LA5PmMR0cV/dp3dRscEVxIBSRjYe0kJf1s7HH+oKanC8lhf tb/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.14.169 with SMTP id q9mr11209571oec.19.1338798477140; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.143.103 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 01:27:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 13:57:57 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Doubt in RFC 3484 From: jiten shah To: ipv6@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1ee0ea7e27704c1a14f00 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 08:29:42 -0000 --e89a8fb1ee0ea7e27704c1a14f00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Consider a topology where two routers are connected back to back. these link have only a IPv6 link local address. I want to ping a global address on the other switch through this link. RFC 3484 says that for selecting the source address : It is RECOMMENDED that the candidate source addresses be the set of unicast addresses assigned to the interface that will be used to send to the destination. (The "outgoing" interface.) On routers, the candidate set MAY include unicast addresses assigned to any interface that forwards packets, subject to the restrictions described below. Discussion: *The Neighbor Discovery Redirect mechanism [14] requires that routers verify that the source address of a packet identifies a neighbor before generating a Redirect, so it is advantageous for hosts to choose source addresses assigned to the outgoing interface. Implementations that wish to support the use of global source addresses assigned to a loopback interface should behave as if the loopback interface originates and forwards the packet.* So since in my topology the outgoing link does not have a global v6 address I need to use address on other interface but I do not understand the above condition. Can someone simplify it on what basis we can use the addresses on the other interface ? Can some one please explain me --e89a8fb1ee0ea7e27704c1a14f00 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Consider a topology where two r= outers are connected back to back. these link have only a IPv6 link local a= ddress. I want to ping a global address on the other switch through this li= nk. RFC 3484 says that for =C2=A0selecting the source address :=C2=A0

=C2=A0It is RECOMMENDED that the candidate source addresses be t= he set of=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0unicast addresses = assigned to the interface that will be used to send=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0to the destination= . =C2=A0(The "outgoing" interface.) =C2=A0On routers, the=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0candidate set MAY = include unicast addresses assigned to any interface=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0that forwards pack= ets, subject to the restrictions described below.=C2=A0

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Discussion: =C2=A0The Neighbor Discovery Redirect mechanism [14]=C2=A0=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 requires that routers verify that the source address o= f a packet=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 identifies a neighbor before gener= ating a Redirect, so it is=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 advantageous for h= osts to choose source addresses assigned to the=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 outgoing interface. =C2=A0Implementations that wish to= support the use=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 of global source addresses a= ssigned to a loopback interface should=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 behave= as if the loopback interface originates and forwards the=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 packet.
<= br style=3D"font-family:verdana,geneva,helvetica,arial,sans-serif;font-size= :13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"> So since in my topology the out= going link does not have a global v6 address I need to use address on other= interface but I do not understand the above condition. Can someone simplif= y it on what basis we can use the addresses on the other interface ?=C2=A0<= /span>
Can some one please explain me<= /span> --e89a8fb1ee0ea7e27704c1a14f00-- From randy@psg.com Mon Jun 4 03:57:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7798421F87C5 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.497 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.497 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NTtgxpxGMJqO for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101AB21F87A8 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SbUyA-0004bs-4N; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:57:06 +0000 Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 03:57:06 -0700 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: jiten shah Subject: Re: Doubt in RFC 3484 In-Reply-To: References: User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 10:57:07 -0000 > Consider a topology where two routers are connected back to > back. these link have only a IPv6 link local address. q: doctor, it hurts when i do that a: don't do that. randy From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Mon Jun 4 07:18:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7053121F88B4; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:18:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nvwxIU3meplL; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8DD21F88AA; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 07:18:55 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Subject: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120604141855.24802.66473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 07:18:55 -0700 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:18:56 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to consider the following document: - 'The Line Identification Destination Option' as Experimental RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-18. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract In Ethernet based aggregation networks, several subscriber premises may be logically connected to the same interface of an edge router. This document proposes a method for the edge router to identify the subscriber premises using the contents of the received Router Solicitation messages. The applicability is limited to broadband network deployment scenarios where multiple user ports are mapped to the same virtual interface on the Edge Router. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-lineid/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-lineid/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Mon Jun 4 08:36:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBFA21F88AA for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:36:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id knQW1s3sl2JY for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:36:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E726A21F888C for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 08:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.103] (modemcable099.192-131-66.mc.videotron.ca [66.131.192.99]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F51D40028 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 11:36:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FCCD602.7020603@viagenie.ca> Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 11:36:34 -0400 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: List of test IPv6 addresses? References: <1338617639.3307.4.camel@karl> In-Reply-To: <1338617639.3307.4.camel@karl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 15:36:37 -0000 On 2012-06-02 02:13, Karl Auer wrote: > I seem to remember seeing, some time ago, a list of lots and lots of > test IPv6 addresses. That is, IPv6 addresses that could be fed into > programs to check whether they were properly interpreted. > > For a project I am currently working on it would be great not to have to > generate all those fiddly test cases myself, apart from the fact that I > would certainly miss some quirky ones. > > So does anyone know where I might have seen this list? It may have been > in the source code to something, or perhaps even someone else's unit > tests. Don't know what list you're talking about, but here are a few ones extracted from Asterisk: http://svn.digium.com/svn/asterisk/trunk/tests/test_netsock2.c > struct parse_test test_vals[] = { > { "192.168.1.0", 1 }, > { "10.255.255.254", 1 }, > { "172.18.5.4", 1 }, > { "8.8.4.4", 1 }, > { "0.0.0.0", 1 }, > { "127.0.0.1", 1 }, > { "1.256.3.4", 0 }, > { "256.0.0.1", 0 }, > { "1.2.3.4:5060", 1 }, > { "::ffff:5.6.7.8", 1 }, > { "fdf8:f53b:82e4::53", 1 }, > { "fe80::200:5aee:feaa:20a2", 1 }, > { "2001::1", 1 }, > { "2001:0000:4136:e378:8000:63bf:3fff:fdd2", 1 }, > { "2001:0002:6c::430", 1 }, > { "2001:10:240:ab::a", 1 }, > { "2002:cb0a:3cdd:1::1", 1 }, > { "2001:db8:8:4::2", 1 }, /* Documentation only, should never be used */ > { "ff01:0:0:0:0:0:0:2", 1 }, /* Multicast */ > { "[fdf8:f53b:82e4::53]", 1 }, > { "[fe80::200:5aee:feaa:20a2]", 1 }, > { "[2001::1]", 1 }, > { "[2001:0000:4136:e378:8000:63bf:3fff:fdd2]:5060", 1 }, > { "2001:0000:4136:e378:8000:63bf:3fff:fdd2:5060", 0 }, /* port, but no brackets */ > { "fe80::200::abcd", 0 }, /* multiple zero expansions */ > }; > /* Test various situations with flags = 0 */ > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("192.168.1.1", 0, "192.168.1.1", "", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("192.168.1.1:5060", 0, "192.168.1.1", "5060", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("::ffff:5.6.7.8", 0, "::ffff:5.6.7.8", "", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("[::ffff:5.6.7.8]:5060", 0, "::ffff:5.6.7.8", "5060", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("fdf8:f53b:82e4::53", 0, "fdf8:f53b:82e4::53", "", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("fe80::200:5aee:feaa:20a2", 0, "fe80::200:5aee:feaa:20a2", "", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("[fdf8:f53b:82e4::53]", 0, "fdf8:f53b:82e4::53", "", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("[fe80::200:5aee:feaa:20a2]:5060", 0, "fe80::200:5aee:feaa:20a2", "5060", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("host:port", 0, "host", "port", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("host", 0, "host", "", 1); > > /* Make sure that flag conditions work when they should */ > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("192.168.1.1:5060", PARSE_PORT_IGNORE, "192.168.1.1", "", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("192.168.1.1:5060", PARSE_PORT_REQUIRE, "192.168.1.1", "5060", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("192.168.1.1", PARSE_PORT_FORBID, "192.168.1.1", "", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("[::ffff:5.6.7.8]:5060", PARSE_PORT_IGNORE, "::ffff:5.6.7.8", "", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("[::ffff:5.6.7.8]:5060", PARSE_PORT_REQUIRE, "::ffff:5.6.7.8", "5060", 1); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("::ffff:5.6.7.8", PARSE_PORT_FORBID, "::ffff:5.6.7.8", "", 1); > > /* Make sure it fails when flag requirements are not met */ > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("192.168.1.1", PARSE_PORT_REQUIRE, "", "", 0); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("192.168.1.1:5060", PARSE_PORT_FORBID, "", "", 0); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("::ffff:5.6.7.8", PARSE_PORT_REQUIRE, "", "", 0); > TEST_SPLIT_HOSTPORT("[::ffff:5.6.7.8]:5060", PARSE_PORT_FORBID, "", "", 0); Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed Jun 6 05:05:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4EF421F85A3; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:05:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id deaR80vFPz6J; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:05:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA0221F85A1; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 05:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C088132458A; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:04:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.32]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A451A4C017; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:04:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.32]) with mapi; Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:04:57 +0200 From: To: "ietf@ietf.org" , Suresh Krishnan Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 14:04:55 +0200 Subject: RE: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC Thread-Topic: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC Thread-Index: Ac1CXRFC6OkRFF7HRc+8+F8rviRB6ABegtJQ Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E32ED1AC0@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20120604141855.24802.66473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120604141855.24802.66473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.6.6.110315 Cc: DUREL Sophie OLNC/NAD/TIP , "ipv6@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:05:01 -0000 Dear Suresh, all, Even if the document includes several warnings about the unreliability of a= n RS-based mechanism, I suggest to add a pointer to the following document: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-6man-rs-access-harmful-00.=20 The document can be cited as an informative reference. Thanks.=20 Cheers, Med =20 >-----Message d'origine----- >De : ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:ietf-announce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de The IESG >Envoy=E9 : lundi 4 juin 2012 16:19 >=C0 : IETF-Announce >Cc : ipv6@ietf.org >Objet : Last Call: (The Line=20 >Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC > > >The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to >consider the following document: >- 'The Line Identification Destination Option' > as Experimental RFC > >The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits >final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the >ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-06-18. Exceptionally,=20 >comments may be >sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the >beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > >Abstract > > > In Ethernet based aggregation networks, several subscriber premises > may be logically connected to the same interface of an edge router. > This document proposes a method for the edge router to identify the > subscriber premises using the contents of the received Router > Solicitation messages. The applicability is limited to broadband > network deployment scenarios where multiple user ports are mapped to > the same virtual interface on the Edge Router. > > > > >The file can be obtained via >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-lineid/ > >IESG discussion can be tracked via >http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-lineid/ballot/ > > >No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > >= From rja.lists@gmail.com Thu Jun 7 09:18:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF26D11E810C for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:18:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.528 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.528 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6umiBBygA+aB for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C1C111E810F for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so473597vcq.31 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:18:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=7uG3qHYt9yUQhNegom8xGKaUSYfdvLOSMAqsqn92ZfQ=; b=cLZqGw7y5uw23jIfnml6uZWTKmA6NVLh6ny6FPibBy6ZBzmcbB+LSgrMXZnuwqf48K fcRinTTa1PuuppT2gP7o4GdAz02F1MjThDuyuU+hNdO3U76/CTQEOuDH/8L0dVjHHhUF ENleacRpbq0zGOF5CCTmCe/72fbTxcKxEiJT6EKExFoshf0k06TQKLjnqMJBG59frO7d lJ/v/n8DKuFz9VBXJIL0xALHUzV/qwyWBn3B36hpaTe+q8bh426h3Md9txHAJW631tBx NNb3A5K/AAQAGG0vhSCFA6vzB03qrPSFucnZ2KwPWJuA2SLm0w7x2+Y7/q4ZZBCzPyLw g2Mw== Received: by 10.52.69.200 with SMTP id g8mr2248912vdu.113.1339085932866; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.20.11] (pool-96-225-134-175.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [96.225.134.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c17sm5203730vdj.11.2012.06.07.09.18.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:18:51 -0700 (PDT) From: RJ Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:18:49 -0400 Message-Id: <043AB3A8-7E94-4082-8207-FF59AD129075@gmail.com> To: ipv6@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:18:54 -0000 One (non-blocking) side comment to the discussion (contained within "draft-dec-6man-rs-access-harmful") that IPv6 RS messages are specified at present to avoid repetitive RS messages after a host's initial (re)initialisation period might be worth repeating. On low bandwidth links (e.g. many commonly used radio links), it is very important to keep the ND traffic low, so that the link capacity can be used for actual user/data traffic. While it is great that some very recent IEEE 802.11 specifications enable higher link capacity wireless LAN segments, there remain many existing radio link technologies that are unlikely ever to have higher link capacity. First-responder radios are especially likely to have significantly constrained link capacity, for example. Yours, Ran From bob.hinden@gmail.com Thu Jun 7 14:59:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA27811E813C for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:59:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c4ylOSCB3VYb for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F9D11E8091 for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so1653401pbc.31 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:59:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=zMSVv4102fCmd3DrMQFFKHFLjjWBV8htRuQDDtUe+Zc=; b=O3lycZyWP1UW1shG59UXNwTqToX5qTJcE6VNB8QNr9k+6/yf9JWhFta9vOSDG6/K6r PiO+vq3bwLFLrsDvtURkWM70bEgXAFooK40t+t2eYzDZ4FRESiairpOXxtMK1CQr/Qet u8ST0BxbWop4QkNVVHp6DK+muAgGGAKQs/1M1+75ZGoJpNxrYRDTaVjB+kzp0ABtw1qK pTvycUFOMnURT/rSTzWV5cjZnNSChI/xtZelLOd41VsDbarvElByBGd2FxEmVE28X3wC MjVje9iSkrmV7NA8LwUIJ9JgOEseYPcrNEDUxr6DQ9c0fKrXw8kRn+4D2FUc7fi6ac/O iAOA== Received: by 10.68.197.136 with SMTP id iu8mr12744868pbc.111.1339106364189; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.224.217] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pg3sm5427732pbc.2.2012.06.07.14.59.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Jun 2012 14:59:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Hinden Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:59:16 -0700 Message-Id: <4056FCE3-A352-49A4-893C-3212CE9D88E0@gmail.com> To: "ipv6@ietf.org List" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Bob Hinden , Brian Haberman X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 21:59:24 -0000 After a discussion between the 6man chairs, the Internet and O&M Area = Directors, the AD's have decided to move this draft to 6MAN. See the = email from Ron Bonica to the mboned list: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01592.html We would like to encourage discussion of this draft on the IPv6 mailing = list. We have also offered the authors a slot on the agenda in = Vancouver. Bob & Ole 6MAN Chairs From ietfc@btconnect.com Fri Jun 8 07:11:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0035B21F8929 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:11:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.327 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.327 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.328, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NKHLpH86oMKo for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (db3ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D5921F8927 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:11:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail117-db3-R.bigfish.com (10.3.81.228) by DB3EHSOBE003.bigfish.com (10.3.84.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:10:25 +0000 Received: from mail117-db3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail117-db3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95CB14801ED; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:10:25 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.55.224.141; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:DB3PRD0702HT002.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -22 X-BigFish: PS-22(zz98dI9371I936eI542M1432I9a6kzz1202hzz1033IL8275bh8275dhz2dh2a8h5a9h668h839h93fhd24hf0ah304l) Received: from mail117-db3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail117-db3 (MessageSwitch) id 133916462499000_5428; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.81.248]) by mail117-db3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E993C0254; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:10:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DB3PRD0702HT002.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.55.224.141) by DB3EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (10.3.87.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:10:23 +0000 Received: from DBXPRD0610HT003.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com (157.56.252.181) by pod51017.outlook.com (10.3.4.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.15.74.2; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:11:11 +0000 Message-ID: <01e201cd4580$1f1654a0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> From: t.petch To: Brian E Carpenter References: <4FC4ED00.5050603@gmail.com> <00df01cd3f08$7b7eacc0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <4FC7AA99.1090202@gmail.com> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt] Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 14:41:31 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Originating-IP: [157.56.252.181] X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com Cc: Bob Hinden , 6man X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 14:11:21 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" To: "t.petch" Cc: "6man" ; "Bob Hinden" Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 6:30 PM > On 2012-05-31 09:36, t.petch wrote: > > Looks good. > > > > I wonder about the first sentence, > > "This document describes how the Zone Identifier of an IPv6 scoped > > address can be represented in a Uniform Resource Identifier that > > includes a literal IPv6 address. " > > > > in that the specification now goes beyond just a literal IPv6 address so > > Where? The only proposal concerns the literal address format (at > least that is the intention). Um, yes. I think I got misled by the word literal; I realise it goes back to RFC2732 but I think I was imagining that there were textual representations that were not literal, whereas the two terms would appear to be synonymous within the context of RFC4007 and this I-D. Tom Petch > > Brian > > > that > > last conditional clause is, while not wrong, perhaps too restrictive, as > > will be clear to anyone who reads on. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Brian E Carpenter" > > To: "6man" > > Cc: "Bob Hinden" > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:36 PM > > Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt] > > > > > >> This version favours the option that seemed to get the > >> most positive reaction on the list. There's been quite some > >> restructuring of the draft since the -00 version, so > >> please read it through and send comments. > >> > >> Brian + Bob > >> > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt > >> Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 08:28:15 -0700 > >> From: internet-drafts@ietf.org > >> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org > >> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org > >> CC: ipv6@ietf.org > >> > >> > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 > >> Maintenance Working Group of the IETF. > >> > >> Title : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Uniform > > Resource Identifiers > >> Author(s) : Brian Carpenter > >> Robert M. Hinden > >> Filename : draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt > >> Pages : 9 > >> Date : 2012-05-29 > >> > >> This document describes how the Zone Identifier of an IPv6 scoped > >> address can be represented in a Uniform Resource Identifier that > >> includes a literal IPv6 address. It updates RFC 3986 and RFC 4007. > >> > >> > >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt > >> > >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >> > >> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt > >> > >> The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid/ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> I-D-Announce mailing list > >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > >> ipv6@ietf.org > >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > > > > > From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Fri Jun 8 13:14:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC82011E815B; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:14:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YoLru9adnSTS; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB7F11E8152; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:14:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q58KED9u009848; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:14:37 -0500 Received: from [142.133.112.108] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:14:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4FD25D14.7000207@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:14:12 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" Subject: Re: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC References: <20120604141855.24802.66473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E32ED1AC0@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E32ED1AC0@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: DUREL Sophie OLNC/NAD/TIP , "ipv6@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:14:38 -0000 Hi Med, On 06/06/2012 08:04 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: > Dear Suresh, all, > > Even if the document includes several warnings about the unreliability of an RS-based mechanism, I suggest to add a pointer to the following document: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-6man-rs-access-harmful-00. Is there something in particular that you think is missing from the lineid draft? The current warning text in lineid (and the reclassification to experimental) was arrived at after consultations with the the 6man chairs and the author of draft-dec. Thanks Suresh From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Fri Jun 8 13:18:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DD1E11E8152 for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:18:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TuZBl3kpURGR for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:18:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D4C11E815F for ; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q58KGijY007918 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:17:39 -0500 Received: from [142.133.112.108] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:17:28 -0400 Message-ID: <4FD25DD8.1000504@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 16:17:28 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC References: <043AB3A8-7E94-4082-8207-FF59AD129075@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <043AB3A8-7E94-4082-8207-FF59AD129075@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:18:00 -0000 Hi Ran, On 06/07/2012 12:18 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > One (non-blocking) side comment to the discussion (contained > within "draft-dec-6man-rs-access-harmful") that IPv6 RS messages > are specified at present to avoid repetitive RS messages after > a host's initial (re)initialisation period might be worth repeating. > > On low bandwidth links (e.g. many commonly used radio links), > it is very important to keep the ND traffic low, so that the > link capacity can be used for actual user/data traffic. > > While it is great that some very recent IEEE 802.11 specifications > enable higher link capacity wireless LAN segments, there remain > many existing radio link technologies that are unlikely ever > to have higher link capacity. First-responder radios are especially > likely to have significantly constrained link capacity, for example. While I fully agree with you, I am not sure how this applies to the lineid draft. Is there some specific change you would like to see in the draft? Thanks Suresh From mcr@sandelman.ca Tue Jun 12 12:39:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D7321F870B; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:39:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.983, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tE4crChTvZme; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:39:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0A6221F86E2; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2025C8297; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id EA10398239; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:39:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13E798147; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:39:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6lowpan@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, 6man@ietf.org Subject: LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 15:39:06 -0400 Message-ID: <21763.1339529946@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:49:55 -0700 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:39:11 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a private (IM) chat between Carsten Bormann and I, we realized that there was prescious little consensus about what building blocks will be used where.=20=20 For instance, I have assumed that a ROLL RPL network would not need=20 the ND parts of 6lowpan-ND, only the DAD parts (if DAD was important). That ND was unnecessary in for RPL nodes as the DAOs and DIOs served the same purpose. This surprised some others. What Carsten said was that some kind of roadmap was necessary. In another hallway conversation at Paris, I came to understand that for layer-2=3D=3DZigbee, that on Zigbee Controllers would ever need to run RPL, and that the regular nodes (such as light switches, forgive me, I do not recall their Zigbee name), would only communicate with a controller. This in contrast to what I know the home automation/P2P people are doing. Finally, I wanted to bring your attention to=20 draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt which I'm told 6man is supposed to consider.=20=20 On some networks you can not send the DAOs or NDs out until you do this. I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9ea2oqHRg3pndX9AQJhDQQAziwu6dv+0MxpNBIwP1s40eO+TBgswHfW szgLOLaTkk7zyWzkvxXj83eDAyDs37K5K2Ar7HtHI7grfB1j9DpJpFKzvxH7WcPA aHaDSg7z15JOdsnb90AQg4URIgP/2MwRI9lw+w21HhR8IkZouhv3xcQqz0L8OoLe 85KBrp9mjPQ= =4OPi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Tue Jun 12 12:51:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2B021F86D8 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.103 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.103 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.496, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wkyHbYfDf5G9 for ; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm28-vm0.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm28-vm0.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.44.190]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 20CF011E8098 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.44.98] by nm28.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2012 19:51:45 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.76] by tm3.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2012 19:51:45 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1013.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Jun 2012 19:51:45 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 203226.51479.bm@omp1013.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 70351 invoked from network); 12 Jun 2012 19:51:44 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339530704; bh=W2A+ELjiRSrNwHJTmYn/hRigAX0bOIhN1zW7hzTliX4=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=niojt1uMEfyPohQcwNMvG2uI2rdaeOiixLm2xrpGW3auqjiZEFu7DTj+XIuxHpjVBOdhS239fEEyiDDIgEeMGJpb0O8vJBAkSur+vT7e8SSBhPQU6ECcXtOY0DTvEhCtkjeC2xRlKatmkAwISXAblXBjfwk8SwRGGaB6SN/TQa0= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 2989_TEVM1klfog0uI5gz9yx1rWUeptLAdGIvQ..fBmfoXd .gcYTqrg_iipYrNRJYgf0AmrvZmeEzl3o4vk24XUawhhkXYbjO9DMMOxCK37 3HFTJN.3UxYmEzfQSWhYm95M1Mqp0S1r_AKILV9UinosF_sY2nvO2I4CFtMH i3rl7qbrBGVnv_CkeP_e.9y_f3KZt4WZRg7nYLVHElPl5JEiRySLf9Gjollf XGnsfEtaVb3p4tw6ylvEGmu5INcyHAwnnMGZpNEeN4OB_IpUPh7KJaaCd.qR _0p8UZUU3.HsOyQ9te8wBv_MGrLPhj3SSEWXRg4brmQKwf5aVftmsdSYXwsH KRnKt2lnnVsHLqWkhQaIF2b7MbLqJKJoMJaZLmuaaSAccDKHw5wiQvaGTvF1 PC_mvU_XvoOHREDVOzGslXXLQB.GOXIVZJrs- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [172.16.1.120] (d.sturek@209.226.25.155 with login) by smtp108.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Jun 2012 12:51:44 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 12:51:39 -0700 Subject: Re: [6lowpan] LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson , <6lowpan@ietf.org>, , <6man@ietf.org> Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] LLN roadmap documents: more missing pieces In-Reply-To: <21763.1339529946@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 13:28:36 -0700 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 19:51:50 -0000 Hi Michael, Don Sturek, chair for the ZigBee Core Stack working group (our group is standarding "ZigBee IP" which is a configured collection of IETF drafts supporting the Smart Energy Profile 2.0 over IEEE802.15.4) It is our group who are looking to standardize MLE (in your note below). That protocol provides the ability to share link quality information among one hop neighbors plus other information (eg, long addresses of neighbors) to allow for an intelligent neighbor selection for mesh routing (including ROLL RPL). Also, in your list below, we support 6LoWPAN ND (not just DAD), MLE, ROLL RPL (non-storing) among other IETF protocols for our solution. We discussed MLE within ZigBee IP and I was not clear on whether ROLL would be the right WG. For sure, I don't think 6LoWPAN is the right place since this protocol can work over mesh networks that are not necessarily employing 6LoWPAN. I think the options we discussed were ROLL and an Internet Area submission. Don On 6/12/12 12:39 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > >In a private (IM) chat between Carsten Bormann and I, we realized that >there >was prescious little consensus about what building blocks will be used >where. > >For instance, I have assumed that a ROLL RPL network would not need >the ND parts of 6lowpan-ND, only the DAD parts (if DAD was important). > >That ND was unnecessary in for RPL nodes as the DAOs and DIOs served the >same purpose. This surprised some others. What Carsten said was that >some kind of roadmap was necessary. > >In another hallway conversation at Paris, I came to understand that for >layer-2==Zigbee, that on Zigbee Controllers would ever need to run RPL, >and that the regular nodes (such as light switches, forgive me, I do not >recall their Zigbee name), would only communicate with a controller. > >This in contrast to what I know the home automation/P2P people are >doing. > >Finally, I wanted to bring your attention to > draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt > >which I'm told 6man is supposed to consider. >On some networks you can not send the DAOs or NDs out until you do this. > >I want to ask if it belongs in ROLL or 6lowpan. > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > >_______________________________________________ >6lowpan mailing list >6lowpan@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed Jun 13 00:17:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841FB21F85A5; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:17:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.096, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IrAmN4PGyjhW; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A827021F85A4; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:17:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E1AE92DC34A; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:17:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.32]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A533A23804B; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:17:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.32]) with mapi; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:17:32 +0200 From: To: Suresh Krishnan Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:17:31 +0200 Subject: RE: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC Thread-Topic: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC Thread-Index: Ac1Fs1XkNY8C44NgQnKZ7H347pCyswDf3WXg Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E331FF0B4@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20120604141855.24802.66473.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E32ED1AC0@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <4FD25D14.7000207@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4FD25D14.7000207@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.5.24.112414 Cc: DUREL Sophie OLNC/NAD/TIP , "ipv6@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:17:34 -0000 Dear Suresh, Having the warnings in the draft is good but having a pointer to a document= including a fair and detailed risk analysis is also valuable and worth to = be acknowledged. Having that pointer is an "invitation" to people who will deploy this mecha= nism (I know some of them who are planning to) to assess the validity of th= e claimed threats (and also to consider the alternatives listed in Section = 3 of draft-dec-*). This is even encouraged given the intended track: "exper= imental".=20 Thanks. Cheers, Med=20 >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com]=20 >Envoy=E9 : vendredi 8 juin 2012 22:14 >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >Cc : ietf@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org; DUREL Sophie OLNC/NAD/TIP >Objet : Re: Last Call: (The=20 >Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC > >Hi Med, > >On 06/06/2012 08:04 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >> Dear Suresh, all, >>=20 >> Even if the document includes several warnings about the=20 >unreliability of an RS-based mechanism, I suggest to add a=20 >pointer to the following document: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-6man-rs-access-harmful-00.=20 > >Is there something in particular that you think is missing from the >lineid draft? The current warning text in lineid (and the >reclassification to experimental) was arrived at after consultations >with the the 6man chairs and the author of draft-dec. > >Thanks >Suresh >= From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 05:17:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D51A21F85C5 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:17:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VvkgKItPIi3j for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:17:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EB2F21F85C4 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:17:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so204492eaa.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:17:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=mS0bNpvEiPkOgEmYtRgWVgkp8lqglrkg7rbb/qhCNyk=; b=ypCKJvDlkgCQYzYaob+GprKqNOmY71UOLNfYpy/nGEs6BdsDEglvhNuzo+iiWXxpol cSdsOYcYneMg1Z5kIgInitqEeK1cd2h6XSt0lbdgkFkGIb4+5Pu6JhH+z+zcfUKiUoaq dvDGn6OjK5QRsgnx6zRtcbDSmgsndfdA6mmDAZfHux75iMWMnNehpzvk/HndLN6Efber lRi2uzvtP6ECJvVsyS75WTkH4g1EY4wPcdRIRQy62i3xqHRm1irU/3UUmVzjAX6pTWqQ GZwXjIjP6OR3O+arIq5SWPeL7YwRLksexT4F+2HtrG0kNV3E4tFcSziQBqwdt9Ws5hqh 6/AQ== Received: by 10.14.189.14 with SMTP id b14mr7376086een.141.1339589864390; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:17:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-117-91.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y54sm6921746eef.10.2012.06.13.05.17.42 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:17:43 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:17:41 +0200 Message-Id: <4CD4908C-3524-45BC-BA6F-1A595E91FFD9@employees.org> To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid@tools.ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:17:46 -0000 All, This message starts a one-week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on = advancing: Title : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in Uniform Resource Identifiers Author(s) : Brian Carpenter Robert M. Hinden Filename : draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt Pages : 9 Date : 2012-05-29 as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments should be directed to the = mailing list or the co-chairs. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the = authors. This last call will end on June 20, 2012. Regards, Bob, & Ole= From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 05:29:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 745AD21F85DA for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:29:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KEzf-SdpJsrT for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:29:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C703221F85AE for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:29:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so210853eek.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:29:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=HO41QP6QIz1UxSbEDAlOWswjEqq4HeBCbVkAIO0mpPU=; b=1IV435UsOs25S8GMwpU3nhT38XbAYgfOhOSvE9qFiAVF8gyPhUb2TfYbMT/DNkTqnq OvvpFRXz3F/xNKjbd8uBcyB8v7cYnRpacpvJxb7znOE/9wIKgAhQ5Xhi7yQGiTXs8eSG 856D7ovD3jfWTjeV+UaveWj2oUpYvq3423TgRI1qfZUPbEw6+LHr7AjTqRnzKwklUyKQ 4VTawqbQwdPv0nMyVPXamh6RTGr/8BqaHRc9BHNujl9M2W7oi0C57SER1giPVrSprcjG PiTSoK0c+zkcQTv5iXRYt7azCfg1GFkOluO9qO1jPOJrZujjP9vxKHkijCY1d7wl3d3G /Qjw== Received: by 10.14.29.7 with SMTP id h7mr7718496eea.84.1339590588586; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:29:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-117-91.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n52sm7045207eeh.9.2012.06.13.05.29.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:29:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:29:45 +0200 Message-Id: To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:29:50 -0000 All, This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting Title : Security and Interoperability Implications of Oversized = IPv6 Header Chains Author(s) : F. Gont, V. Manral Filename : draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 Pages : 12 Date : 2012-06-13 as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or to the chairs. This call will end June 27, 2012. Regards, Ole & Bob From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 05:32:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FA121F8593 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:32:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b8QoNB8gueen for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:32:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1E5F21F8534 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so211325eaa.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:32:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=d6kjGxXptSyBcVcTBAEm0vVtqHExACrYPVH63knQPPg=; b=rdcBML1mtLgYqbMfA4a1DbuxabfeEzqC100kXgHAoJODlGBrViFU7iQ7Nyr7FcCOgZ aH4GVIStDZl3SVU0F2E7Dzmji3uzRExMcCHmQtKvxeYTeqNZcTRAHxDacqnpz9LjIh6Y y42IdP6rTchoEmLbJvc0AP3ay+z9qq7L4VCmzyYeabTHH9/lDO+1yKUbQnRiNNEwj7Jz +R5+fDh4HTI8TUqzPJPCbbo15eFx2mkVLuia8kyPr3YXoUc6JoCHqgRsM424tTy4pu0K l6b9iQ7oPAtjiawoCLgDnMs3Yx14zYZb5AXTq+wNaGbJbJ7ISgEV1OCJJKgEz85n0aTp fJ+A== Received: by 10.14.28.202 with SMTP id g50mr1303701eea.167.1339590741690; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:32:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-117-91.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z5sm7099485eem.3.2012.06.13.05.32.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 05:32:20 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:32:18 +0200 Message-Id: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:32:23 -0000 All, This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting Title : Security Implications of the Use of IPv6 Extension = Headers with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Author(s) : F. Gont Filename : draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 Pages : 13 Date : 2012-06-13 as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or to the chairs. This call will end June 27, 2012. Regards, Ole & Bob= From randy@psg.com Wed Jun 13 07:08:38 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D771921F85B1 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:08:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.298 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8cFw86P4PJSG for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C01E21F85AC for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rair.psg.com.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.77 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1SeoFQ-000A3j-BY; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:08:36 +0000 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:08:35 +0900 Message-ID: From: Randy Bush To: Ole =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tr=F8an?= Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt In-Reply-To: <4CD4908C-3524-45BC-BA6F-1A595E91FFD9@employees.org> References: <4CD4908C-3524-45BC-BA6F-1A595E91FFD9@employees.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: ipv6 deployment prevention X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:08:38 -0000 i have slogged through it and support publication as ps randy From rajiva@cisco.com Wed Jun 13 07:09:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B68321F860F for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:09:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.049 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.049 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.517, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EHykaDAGTGF6 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:09:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB4521F860E for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:09:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=463; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1339596564; x=1340806164; h=subject:references:content-transfer-encoding:from: in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:cc:mime-version; bh=FKwLnEfIkJA8pJsFMEX/5C+sNIZzCQy2Nuhglg3hK6k=; b=epR/8OG3/kRVwmQ6Wcrh4RmCQlaSYPzRTtJFAYfrWcZJrTA3t7fHOYTe SA5RnK4tElOxFHUMwIc5EtarOjyWSFycEEdIVb4wFO7D1GVWNFgCeRPX7 C8dWNi/xT7T0ilPGsqf5MkDNQFk/FKMCT31Yrz8j/XHLc64TIRheRs5y1 M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8FAEee2E+tJV2c/2dsb2JhbABFtTwCgQeCGAEBAQMBAQEBDwEnNAsFCwIBCEYnMAEBBBMih2QFC5l2oAEEizGFMWADiEGMYI4WgWaDAA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,763,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="92120424" Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2012 14:09:23 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5DE9NmP000393; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:09:23 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-212.cisco.com ([72.163.62.219]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:09:22 -0500 Received: from 72.163.62.219 ([72.163.62.219]) by XMB-RCD-212.cisco.com ([72.163.62.219]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:09:22 +0000 Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt References: <4CD4908C-3524-45BC-BA6F-1A595E91FFD9@employees.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2724C13B-38A1-477F-8F75-4250D0F3611D@cisco.com> Thread-Topic: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:09:21 -0700 Thread-Index: Ac1JbiHV98qbx3+ZSi6q8qGwUzt36g== To: "Randy Bush" MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2012 14:09:23.0011 (UTC) FILETIME=[220CD930:01CD496E] Cc: ipv6 deployment prevention X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:09:24 -0000 Support Cheers, Rajiv Sent from my Phone On Jun 13, 2012, at 7:08 AM, "Randy Bush" wrote: > i have slogged through it and support publication as ps > > randy > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From rja.lists@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 07:12:50 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2538421F84E1 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:12:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eB8VByG7JGfm for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com (mail-qa0-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E11C21F84DF for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so1357321qab.15 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:12:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=5BProXAVSK79RrSjxYjwt6VPO6Fi0Xxgpuc2IDu34iI=; b=iqzQbUuR7LYAXq4x/djPLD0PDTp8aZFp5WPVJqEpp5C077Vv2f5E8HWnGPnoMfheAc nJyIG9zcRDj8UyEUPThK5LAuuJmHknqUX18EVaiOsiykrWRZ1jX+Keh8p2UHoaGUOfJN fhN87cr5l0cvSCELWyd7t7wjL7cuDP7b9n1dQPqa0SiCKvi1VeVBKNhy9od9E6WIaivt 33DuoFyNrktInH65YasDDnUareYNEeerX/lWBjJF4k78HUxx8cSdNVxPR/rof7OhTPlz pZp59iMtGZEsiBA1HfTTRNQwcPF7eRqG1AH+Q6fYVbLlTdYmf+NVOqSPGi5kZgOx79+/ WYxQ== Received: by 10.229.137.11 with SMTP id u11mr10611899qct.44.1339596766674; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.20.11] (pool-96-225-134-175.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [96.225.134.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ej2sm9788798qab.7.2012.06.13.07.12.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:12:46 -0700 (PDT) From: RJ Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:12:46 -0400 Message-Id: <400B0A44-BBB5-4F43-97F3-9518AC1E78C1@gmail.com> To: ipv6@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:12:50 -0000 Hi, I support the 6MAN WG adopting this document -- and also the closely related draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers document. The proposals in these two documents are closely related to current work in IPv6 Ops WG to create an IETF specification for an IPv6 Router Advertisement (RA) Guard function. My understanding is that the next revision of the RA Guard draft will cite these two document normatively. It would be very helpful if folks could read these two documents soon, so the 6MAN WG is able to consider the proposed specification changes inside these documents soon. Yours, Ran Atkinson From rja.lists@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 07:23:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E9121F85DA for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:23:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_INVITATION=-2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7mnYBKHBV7Q7 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f49.google.com (mail-qa0-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1350721F853E for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qabj40 with SMTP id j40so1368705qab.15 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:23:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=eUwBeiccrAIgfNC8WPZvPrKWGeuTVtO9XhSUEhwCKfY=; b=fLmRmjTdCr1LL4/SMNTh9by/iXAeIP0df2Kh0Svtn7X3vjfMje0Lk0GDEbkBq4Bw2i gThYZZ0ltr7ZtY/m72Ck+84ZUotggYPrep3H/WOSrCkKptcdZ8hJIip4R8FuLBQ5qudK wIcxHEutpKt+9YSCmU0WaeBjxKLgS84VsWw8xZ4d5nFTgzOjaWF501W4fvym/wvnyrCk tY3v8GS9wtKfWTyMqh7G4WhrAt/+2MMeLu5VtK3Lwy+rL+rUv0cbMpfEBBzaXdSSQKNr 6rj+KxK54Ur6Pz7S/nvaYHkKEslMfLadllxb57pdeN/+4jVUNpeM1x6cko8BPwKqb3iX 3B8w== Received: by 10.224.72.210 with SMTP id n18mr27166240qaj.10.1339597389526; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.30.20.11] (pool-96-225-134-175.nrflva.fios.verizon.net. [96.225.134.175]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e2sm9827875qap.15.2012.06.13.07.23.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:23:08 -0700 (PDT) From: RJ Atkinson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: RE: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:23:09 -0400 Message-Id: <22B5C3E9-47B8-46DD-8C14-0089DCC785C2@gmail.com> To: ipv6@ietf.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:23:15 -0000 On 13th June 2012, Mohamed Boucadair wrote, in part: > > Having the warnings in the draft is good but having a pointer > to a document including a fair and detailed risk analysis is also > valuable and worth to be acknowledged. > > Having that pointer is an "invitation" to people who will deploy > this mechanism (I know some of them who are planning to) to assess > the validity of the claimed threats (and also to consider the > alternatives listed in Section 3 of draft-dec-*). This is > even encouraged given the intended track: "experimental". (Aside: s/intended track/intended status/ just above) Agreed. The requested addition of the informative reference is not burdensome and seems entirely justified on technical grounds. Please add the informative reference as requested. The IETF tries to provide full information in RFCs so that network users/operators can make fully informed decisions about whether to deploy or enable a particular IETF technology in a particular network. Adding this citation helps enable such network users/operators to locate that additional document which contains a more detailed discussion of the operational risks. In turn, this enables a more fully informed decision about whether to deploy/enable the LineID option -- and where/when it might not be appropriate for a network to deploy/enable the LineID option. I don't see any valid technical or procedural grounds to refuse to add an informative reference. Please add it. Yours, Ran From Internet-Drafts@ietf.org Wed Jun 13 07:27:39 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0445721F8568; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:27:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.605 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.994, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RjmkxOmMrxYZ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:27:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D75C21F852A; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:27:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-03.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.20 Message-ID: <20120613142738.14237.57642.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:27:38 -0700 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 14:27:39 -0000 --NextPart A new Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF. Title : Duplicate Address Detection Proxy Author(s) : F. Costa, et al Filename : draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy Pages : 13 Date : June 13, 2012 The document describes a mechanism allowing the use of Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) by IPv6 nodes in a point-to-multipoint architecture with "split-horizon" forwarding scheme. Based on the DAD signalling, the first hop router stores in a Binding Table all known IPv6 addresses used on a point-to-multipoint domain (e.g. VLAN). When a node performs DAD for an address already used by another node, the first hop router replies instead of this last one. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-03.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ 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: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2012-06-13072738.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Wed Jun 13 08:24:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFCFE21F85D2 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:24:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lwPxot8JaWtO for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:24:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C21E21F85C2 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:24:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0706.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.31]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5DFOQxP023596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:24:47 -0500 Received: from [142.133.112.108] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:24:41 -0400 Message-ID: <4FD8B0B9.7000405@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:24:41 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RJ Atkinson Subject: Re: Last Call: (The Line Identification Destination Option) to Experimental RFC References: <22B5C3E9-47B8-46DD-8C14-0089DCC785C2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <22B5C3E9-47B8-46DD-8C14-0089DCC785C2@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:24:53 -0000 Hi Ran/Med, I will add the reference and publish a new rev at the end of the last call period in addition. Cheers Suresh From davehart@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 11:46:41 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D394C11E8096 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zalkcbrmvfym for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:46:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F99F11E8086 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkty8 with SMTP id y8so866648bkt.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:46:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Rp4kr89J0+rULOxrYaH60UDVrM9QDtM/bs2fIbPjPIc=; b=LicqFIqU4NIZwoIR82RKWxDE2irVrOokcvaQVDvhj6yVHviaVm9VL6MK+H3hSPrrxg Ldh3418bJ26bxPHJ6R1QziIi7/WIaj7sfnxnaVvP7+vCoSZBpbv34mr4OLuUSO9Qn3ex kmXMcYoh/0sNLRH0S+kGRyGrKeNgtfig0MPzMNmEIo55Ee8V99fS5gMhGIK8XobmOqzg C3s3VworG6CKU6lmNi+L8i3j9Gx8s7CL0lwlc49MFocchnXvaCd88SWS9gdToUXAFAjh OW2ybE7ol18fCFveeVz0u1M9X//X7JuKfLYYiwqDC3P0WOJcWgLJGVoOy54aLEWEvs98 Rwtw== Received: by 10.204.154.214 with SMTP id p22mr13641950bkw.115.1339613199123; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:46:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.114.18 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:46:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Dave Hart Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:46:18 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:46:41 -0000 I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 as a 6MAN WG document. Dave Hart From davehart@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 11:47:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52A9F21F83EF for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:47:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDFS2xmDx5OO for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7510811E80B2 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkty8 with SMTP id y8so867305bkt.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=1VpatJyC1CKd1nWEOKCet+wxzdAVSFkXsXlpJ8xYWb4=; b=kiay/H5JJ2/BgfOYbysgab6I6GWl1EkzzHhmgQwlndD3Gq2Gwil1sp9tGNJ5TR9HN/ 5losmmLJpL8WvA0iJrkZp0UJzVeL8DQfS6GCnL7ss/Rvrhi9ifLHVvmApRlHwfPcoleP yIXgy/3VpqcctTPvAtPuZhL12FTu7YRp+U3ViCV5GWYpKxcd+BOm+sEyxLUaNguqhpmA KbSeK6J8ysbeEraHxzWFRK2tgaI4/J5U3E7kQXX3aSJ0VT52lg9HVl+T7qjZVo/Up2e+ uzPEcN9s/KPu/KUoEoSj9Q2kAW6UBq5wG+AxTuUArqtXEku38WRceSKMflQYj7AAxVGN OgCw== Received: by 10.204.150.92 with SMTP id x28mr14101882bkv.61.1339613242570; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:47:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.114.18 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:47:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> References: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> From: Dave Hart Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:47:02 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:47:24 -0000 I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 as a 6MAN WG document. Dave Hart From davehart@gmail.com Wed Jun 13 11:54:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D05A21F84DD for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:54:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 47WgkRengkUf for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:54:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F3B21F84E6 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkty8 with SMTP id y8so873092bkt.31 for ; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=5jWODec8/XhFW+Zqev+gzh8/WjSgqq3WAELkO5o5le4=; b=QJn6KnbqyIwH/dDRtcJ9S5UtVvVA6QP8AWC8xW6Dp5A9W+RVoVqyIAbyck8hJYrmQP i3+RPD5fpmElKSjjaWpqmN1dHbVJ/AUYXXS/mJHwWAUNTaVS4atTdoOUkLj9xrST4MYM et+JhhJDQgFZ9NbnFC+gZ2uiwE77LZwO0tMf4bjR49wLUXq5ZkV6mlRMTuSyzykoc0sM H6Jv7onuZiRQnpuTTky7YKHL8qRwtv+DcvdQnZHKl/XZHfLPFCTRTjAdR8FS4I6p60yn 17irNH1x1iGtsMekrVlRCl26msqwC/BC0xfqVCzbFxUmEoUvMl3H0hMRIn98rvvcDfPd GUOA== Received: by 10.204.129.87 with SMTP id n23mr13856611bks.19.1339613641184; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:54:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.114.18 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Jun 2012 11:53:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CD4908C-3524-45BC-BA6F-1A595E91FFD9@employees.org> References: <4CD4908C-3524-45BC-BA6F-1A595E91FFD9@employees.org> From: Dave Hart Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:53:40 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:54:09 -0000 I support advancing draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01 as a PS. Dave Hart From despres.remi@laposte.net Thu Jun 14 01:08:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0CC21F8669 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:08:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N+W+7pTWBu7D for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp22.services.sfr.fr (smtp22.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4D7F21F866D for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2214.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 9DC6E70000B5; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:08:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2214.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 049BA70000B0; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:08:46 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20120614080847189.049BA70000B0@msfrf2214.sfr.fr Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:08:45 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <20DB2AE1-338B-4E88-9665-18AD5EF781DD@laposte.net> References: To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:08:53 -0000 Le 2012-06-13 =E0 20:46, Dave Hart a =E9crit : > I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 as > a 6MAN WG document. +1 RD >=20 > Dave Hart > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From despres.remi@laposte.net Thu Jun 14 01:16:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B859121F851B for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:16:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eq+aRvk5rYB4 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp22.services.sfr.fr (smtp22.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B7F21F8512 for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 01:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2214.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 52B847000155; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:16:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2214.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 187F470000BE; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:16:52 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20120614081652100.187F470000BE@msfrf2214.sfr.fr Subject: Re: 6MAN WG [second] Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 10:16:51 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <4CD4908C-3524-45BC-BA6F-1A595E91FFD9@employees.org> To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 08:16:54 -0000 Le 2012-06-13 =E0 20:53, Dave Hart a =E9crit : > I support advancing draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-01 as a PS. +1 RD >=20 > Dave Hart > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jun 14 13:13:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7786B21F858D; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:13:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.252 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.702, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XHLK51Iqas4d; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B4B21F8567; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB8448297; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:10:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 1EC8F98C2E; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:13:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BC598C2D; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:13:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: 6lowpan@ietf.org, roll@ietf.org, richard.kelsey@ember.com, ipv6@ietf.org Subject: draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:13:20 -0400 Message-ID: <6808.1339704800@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:13:23 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that=20 MLE messages are sent using UDP. I want to suggest that MLE messages should be sent at least as IPv6 ICMP messages.=20=20 Further, I think that it could use the RPL type 155, and RPL would allocate a new "code" codepoint. There would be some preference to have the general structure of MLE match that of RPL, but I think that this isn't particularly a strong requirement. Allocating a new ICMP type code for MLE alone might be seen as excessive, but I can not speak for the folks in 6man. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9pF34qHRg3pndX9AQJPIAP+N8iVtsvMdZ5Puona18HH5pm1bFSiDpV8 PtcYZ4/boPM1EoS+bluWA13oEoHyGY+jQJ/Za5Ta/Yh31L82VF0QMoozPAhOwwSH 9Ow6Kuf/CL+JQbUXRprSl9CYgbe2fa0OHlvb8pcMZd/ETzeUgwLtREjhEZZRangy NynhubUyQN8= =qj/y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 02:25:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A36821F85D1 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:25:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id odfLms5jcH-I for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm19.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm19.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.44.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EA8DF21F85D0 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 02:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.44.98] by nm19.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 09:25:49 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.85] by tm3.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 09:25:49 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1022.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 09:25:49 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 397954.81193.bm@omp1022.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 83612 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 09:25:48 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339752348; bh=N2HYMj3YUpjfA+ecBMkLAgQGOaAXBqI86DSSaK7wnvI=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=jN+BYYU1pE2I/c0/Xd8l+BnsiTwp/gGFOsub6RNAmb2YA94qb5DebhAKR61YoDFFhn+HYVFs1z7ErOerkOR4Js2xrXANoI2z1EXRZ1xAC7Byr4x/unW19BX5qGEcp/JORDmRSmPDXrGJvosqfpNP3LwxZ6A8/0fkiMycZQQ4ujc= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: _tsrMlMVM1lC3BKXcycyN8Pqz7q7tjoipyFRsv.Vg8F8n2R 86zKH3VoHLIBwcxlAVkGqHLLfvqJHmrrr5cNWpJ1ECHKPmsG9Opf_Xj2gw4b U6Y7tFQ8DRfNsiXUNHNq5zpaWWDfCnoALLfnGsdoBET3c4z5jIiIRKRyp5FE FYwIVeiE7yXI4RAZ9ATQttZ5_9iaeZ8IXeby9WHOcIWWJayIycoFgU6QPLzL O5IsNx2l9SVWl4GMBwVFN0faNc5gYY692ioEUc.74OzMG1MytdMWnR_D4xFb mLqS5c_Znuu6LqhsqA2S6FfMXHE27_Qdu8vwFjdN8mdaX5yw7C56i6qbDK.q UHZNsOTY5YnvOD5ARAzN_qgKL6CxmIIG8_lt6NSOfYcaIwqCorHJw43nBgx8 JgXR2Gzxf80_hJiQSVOMxMq7AwAkbdPETGdy9 X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.205.138.57] (d.sturek@209.226.201.250 with login) by smtp111.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 02:25:48 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:43:36 -0700 Subject: Re: [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson , <6lowpan@ietf.org>, , , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <6808.1339704800@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:25:52 -0000 All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so will opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application....) Don On 6/14/12 1:13 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > >In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that > MLE messages are sent using UDP. > >I want to suggest that MLE messages should be sent at least as IPv6 >ICMP messages. > >Further, I think that it could use the RPL type 155, and RPL would >allocate a new "code" codepoint. > >There would be some preference to have the general structure of MLE >match that of RPL, but I think that this isn't particularly a strong >requirement. Allocating a new ICMP type code for MLE alone might be >seen as excessive, but I can not speak for the folks in 6man. > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > >_______________________________________________ >Roll mailing list >Roll@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll From cabo@tzi.org Fri Jun 15 03:43:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B5921F85C5; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:43:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qPYTZ9iFwAI; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EFA21F85C0; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:43:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5FAhcsM014957; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.0.1.3] (reingewinn.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.218.123]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA0625A8; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:38 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Carsten Bormann In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:43:38 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2D207A78-AD9A-47B6-AD51-9108CEA7D502@tzi.org> References: To: Don Sturek X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: richard.kelsey@ember.com, roll@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:55 -0000 > we don't have time for all these changes It's likely that the next question that will come up is: Should this be published as an informational RFC called "ZigBee's MLE = protocol" because the protocol is no longer really meant to be modified = in the process or should it be pursued as a standards track document? (Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stability of protocols when there is = running code. Stability against gratuitous change and Brownian motion, that is. =20 But not when there are good technical reasons to have the change. We should be having the discussion on whether that's the case, I think. And how the encapsulation of MLE works in the first place, something I = don't understand yet.) Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Jun 15 06:12:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55AE621F845F; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:12:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.339 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.339 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.615, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mxxLy26f+Toy; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:12:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4E621F86CB; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:12:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C8C78549; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:09:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 94F7C98C2E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:12:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E46198C2D; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:12:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Thomas Heide Clausen Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> References: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:12:13 -0400 Message-ID: <16656.1339765933@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "" , "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org> X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:12:19 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Thomas" =3D=3D Thomas Heide Clausen writes: Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally).=20 Thomas, you will note that: 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a type/code. 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9s0rYqHRg3pndX9AQKLCgP/eg+mGX3tdePewosTFvFyyNiBj+hZ7ULk KTiyNFhTpjTKwZIV5y3eVOv/SmFCqSgFDckZtBrLW7m3DylwxnTAXTkXkmmmuIeO 9zYbK+FUC+BomKS25Tm6uIkSAl84GLn2KT3x/hKIBvmLxZx9rBkP5Y35QiMQHQKJ mzp8qMaC+aw= =Y5fM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 06:57:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EBB621F86D9 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:57:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x9Jj8eQGEFly for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm12-vm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm12-vm3.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.91.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 847E821F875B for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:57:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.226.179] by nm12.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 Received: from [68.142.200.221] by tm14.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.112] by t9.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1017.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 119401.90156.bm@omp1017.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 16548 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 13:57:47 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339768667; bh=wYKSezaP4Owb5+5j2ofTKxL2UEB4+zSNMIZ5r65CuhE=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=fRrpdSNPPv9K2/VQiqD1kb+G2WbDRJd6NYKgWuYdhox2sFrXgk9EkGvpgagnYBWWLSAGPKA/ZFAx0Hgkc9WQ/JI2MmzdQ4LyPMt7WJTckueR57ZQhhGi7/ce/SHffMPW5Zvi/3h0KpbL87D1b0vb0johN0WrmmtnU5Hfmm73T8E= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: RxQRipwVM1kxRBn.4uTZe_0F5knr8G.DTwTa4woPQIlWhov wbIw_IPP4E7YSZw3a54oDFfoRBMkqpMTrNSImas3_zewP7_6dTlpm8RgqiX1 fFbfkxU6oHcDCi4MFLWLhOjvGHHNvTocmvFK5KJ2BT9kkiCmEOx4nR2UNBBB NXF05x97fjACXWGpyzFfjqVxvyuNhyJOndj0pwuqI9BHuxNsBA0Eb5rePBCn sg_hQmQrn10grtugdKXXfhtPcss7SNh73nAIpH6kbxBBtn1ZrnTGgan.CNwT cgY.LEWCImO3yU29jnx71Gdi6EJOpMeOa7y3YJUdlKbqfpTcUiQyjVYpkx8g fooJp7F5VZ_nuqW6Oc0oxTOOQmCyW1xW_2mxHlDYvX8Iow18PSTCMXAggnjA Oqqf68EexKSet2zPuaFwDL9cGM7iKduLcpQr0yPKgRbcYYry.nSR2L957GbH b00AV4fyISN1Exg29RWc5M2Wfh3juRR_nfdvSi0v7aXeceuWvPDelfbMjKNE - X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.242.10.56] (d.sturek@208.54.15.109 with login) by smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 06:57:46 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:57:38 -0700 Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt From: Don Sturek To: Thomas Heide Clausen , Michael Richardson Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <6FE0075D-CB42-4FE1-A5D2-20330917542C@thomasclausen.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:57:48 -0000 Hi Thomas (and Michael), I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL. The draft was written carefully to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL. That said, the deployment we are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL (non-storing) and I think many others will find the information exchanged between neighbors using MLE as useful. Don On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" wrote: > >On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote: > >> >>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen writes: >> Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not >> Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if >> Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then >> Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be >> Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& >> Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally). >> >> Thomas, you will note that: >> 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push >> back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a >>type/code. >> 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. >> > >In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such >that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context >(special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and >specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment. > >> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. > >I don't. > >Thomas > >> -- >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >> > From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 07:00:17 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5517E21F8770 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:00:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8FCqkWbzFpRH for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm12-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm12-vm0.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.91.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D19921F8789 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.91.67] by nm12.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 Received: from [68.142.200.224] by tm7.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.101] by t5.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1006.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 72432.17866.bm@omp1006.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 58417 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 14:00:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339768813; bh=AFDdcLshwegeGdJ3PyFMNWUiQr8maS3RpLbyUe1Hxfs=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=bqWBUdoA/7r1/6mRwwox21jJbe5ohQAL6vEgb/tYex4pz9jRpUgGu5S8GekLP6VuklHq4chDtzVGK0lobz0j4b5r0SOEYX1CnpfS4Dc3BTrBxzU1H4i+Hzk/y8MSud46lrDLY3vdHlL/4FnJYzHyDCJK2REbT8dkZSCrH+wz+S8= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: qqtsPxcVM1lDeQVimWV_0ENh76.4ITpbVxHCpltrAXNSMhj 3MVm9bUfKPcy0aEt2J_XFOR72TFTucbeb1Gj6gOdLKzhlx6RVV8LsEzKhzm3 RuU60xFOOCRTRHlZvp9mzSZ1vRcvCKe7lwgeCFwvCVyJFQBewr.P7ZufnWdh WX.abpd2u85S9PJJnp8sH4mE8kLurj2P4Y0MZm_C5TEbkOTXnPsbGUNQFqLh 5TBGK0zhl41kfGGEu9MO6CeHu96ZBd0P87QP.vIWXGclZUY1wa3GvAUezJg4 KDE3jlOSmu_5tG6.ld7FSOJbs1xYWklSTGWS8ELVIlLSP76zn5hO0D72jO3N rW8lSuMTWk0U3mORlA4K3LLH0IYGcRZ5kEGsgw9GGnJQlRuCBv0n54DI7mK0 z8uUWo4FLcXqdbvh7A_0Kt61mhQYAXPEbITSNJF6gv6O4bPW6Ug63KiiA4Ob NPP2g7cPNNJm3Ke4XaXJ0FAiwIp0EHzDGMc.nSWWzEc074qjkLnoX35rWiQg - X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.242.10.56] (d.sturek@208.54.15.109 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 07:00:11 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:59:50 -0700 Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson , Thomas Heide Clausen Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <16656.1339765933@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:00:17 -0000 Hi Michael, We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE. ICMP will take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue if there are additional information exchanges needed using MLE. While the ZigBee Alliance is using ROLL RPL and 6LoWPAN, the information exchanged in MLE is not tied specifically to those protocols (however, those implementing will find the exchange useful......) Don On 6/15/12 6:12 AM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen writes: > Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not > Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if > Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then > Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be > Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& > Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally). > >Thomas, you will note that: > 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push > back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a >type/code. > 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. > >I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 07:13:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C0321F8738 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.083, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DIl47A4kS482 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:13:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm21-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm21-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.90.94]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C4EF121F875E for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:13:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.56] by nm21.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:13:27 -0000 Received: from [68.142.200.224] by tm9.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:13:27 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.118] by t5.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:13:27 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:13:27 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 357136.64684.bm@omp1023.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 63045 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 14:13:22 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339769601; bh=Prw8VTExGAVZY+YNdUhj2FQ0DGRK8DpKkJJ+t8VNJhY=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=aBjQSZOiws4P2VF5JQDTJvJ0Mj8Vqv85HfR6C6X7bjzCCD1amcNYu2XqlgnW+rdk0XTWaXahzf1i4L850m29nnzCZdM9/TslKWfB9nnpyeNMhq5YTecOqzVYF7Dt2a2Db4RKzowQ2FJlFCXuYv3v3W6ojub8GhrOCoFG2MMwzhU= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 3WQPiMsVM1mtRLPKVTOOfr1T5EPzQ6mKriM41tRvBneF92V hMdO6oZ6v1e1P2F1crFJSBMZPBIuXBXyKkUavTlReBOYzzv83ks9myZHFzFa 6CLnIIJYUS2zZDUoOCShRvtSvUaB3hGv3c5hrKWu.9LWREk.DRU.cYKZKlmx sDozDDLA5v6WdikKP5ljdspy6Ic67uefMgL6xglWbHZgbnkYVm1MqCLIjPHM K_GXWMkV0kuCfEmQ6X9_hIoOcxwxXjTmq3R.QeYTXxiLraIAbYfSdelz9lQb IxMCbxv0nvN_BAJ2pw5SwI1otHMcYfFBgd2dN8gIzIVF2lI9tHrzN2bCkbb8 oWJ8wy61ScsLkAdYXaajWApforZXaTiZcTpMifggyuIxoZhsBYBk1skVet_n pIHndvntsxrvvqXU4yordeSsrAkVocq4Xmg-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.242.10.56] (d.sturek@208.54.15.109 with login) by smtp101.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 07:13:13 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:12:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt From: Don Sturek To: Carsten Bormann Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <2D207A78-AD9A-47B6-AD51-9108CEA7D502@tzi.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Cc: richard.kelsey@ember.com, roll@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:13:28 -0000 Hi Carsten, I answered a similar note privately from Michael. Let me share part of that here for everyone: ...... (part of note to Michael deleted....)....... We are just sharing our experience of now 2 years of monthly interops using 6LoWPAN, ROLL RPL, PANA and now MLE. Many of us participated in 6LoWPAN ND and ROLL RPL in IETF (including the author of the MLE draft). We are simply offering up that body of experience to point out the remaining gaps in deploying these protocols. We are pretty close to having a sizable number of semiconductor manufacturers go through commercial certification on these RFCs and drafts. We do have a specification but it simply calls out the RFCs and drafts then provides a baseline configuration used in our commercial deployment. We think many other commercial groups will need to do the same to make interoperability a reality using these protocols. I do believe our specification will be made publicly available once our initial certification is complete (maybe 6 months from now?). The interesting part is product developers should have access to IP enabled IEEE 802.15.4 written in such a way to provide multi-vendor interoperability. One thing though: We realized we needed MLE rather late in our interop process so we don't have a lot of time to close on MLE (commercially). Certainly your ideas to use either ROLL RPL messages or ICMP messages for MLE would not work for us schedule wise. We would have to continue using MLE as written (using UDP) if it goes in another direction within IETF. That said, if we can find a way to *extend* the protocol using input from the ROLL WG (or others) in a way that allows us to continue through certification using MLE (maybe with even some small changes) that would be a win for everyone. ........ (end of note.....)........ Don On 6/15/12 3:43 AM, "Carsten Bormann" wrote: >> we don't have time for all these changes > >It's likely that the next question that will come up is: > >Should this be published as an informational RFC called "ZigBee's MLE >protocol" because the protocol is no longer really meant to be modified >in the process or should it be pursued as a standards track document? > >(Don't get me wrong, I'm all for stability of protocols when there is >running code. >Stability against gratuitous change and Brownian motion, that is. >But not when there are good technical reasons to have the change. >We should be having the discussion on whether that's the case, I think. >And how the encapsulation of MLE works in the first place, something I >don't understand yet.) > >Gr=FC=DFe, Carsten > From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 07:27:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CB8921F877D for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:27:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.537 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.062, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75B2nBDHlY7S for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm21.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm21.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.90.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3822B21F875E for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.226.176] by nm21.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 Received: from [209.191.108.97] by tm11.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.118] by t4.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 629359.42745.bm@omp1023.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 41982 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 14:27:17 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339770437; bh=B3MkwchSpRexCffgMr0QGIQ9B4f3EDxbXD12jApPkT4=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=IU7Tk38htPR/QSrlTMwB4NMGuPW/YLyPoIOEl8uiPWlc+H/BfWILo2xlpaEX4PGjHWf+5n4PEojvTbuEn1OxX3XlLR3DENiFXSV0SyqNdwhpV1vvycap2frvwTQnASUCjw8BU/YUZr1orX5l2VPdQZ/s9bLcy+j03bNjjK+EId8= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: HntDCzIVM1lnXKz4VWlUDBSGugYmHw_mtZtYwfWkN15O9WW iDcDVM64.FYNAM0Bnu54QssHvQ2lty180ytgKww421sNbFQAYfPd8sEQ.LH7 HkXfNEKb0ucgd0chtGc5K_Y3cN5sLSew7ToZczP2IcQ5nt_BBsr9YNr6vvWq dxkSz6.tWXmJdYsSEWC9.uW3p6c151zlSr9Seflm4ceZvRhxOrc4gFkk72rU Is3IGlQTIHP7rxSGX9iDJ1EgwFwg8l.aU_xohZtm2I3OpClPxRMdzILUyYUZ Z4W6oL_8LAJQoOQ8v46BM2NJihymd6XtMI6AITf_1_ZLyV2EhKxtX5eqToYA fe1gpMxeJneRWyO0PBTph9O6pOe9BFuf.4Ahs0arSAksu9e_T0zh_E3q.2Ed PpU7M8TOG9zrUtZgovii7YieLvFZFoN_B3ksXtAIxe6EyEumopWo- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.242.10.248] (d.sturek@208.54.15.47 with login) by smtp111.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 07:27:16 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:19:53 -0700 Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt From: Don Sturek To: Thomas Heide Clausen Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:27:19 -0000 Hi Thomas, Sorry it was late when I wrote that response :-) We debated a long time on MLE. We knew we needed a one hop information exchange between nodes to help with 6LoWPAN ND (eg exchange long address information), link quality (eg. for creation and maintenance of symmetric links), etc. We looked at a lot of transport options and UDP seemed to make the most sense. One nice thing about having MLE use UDP: If someone wishes to extend MLE they don't need to have work done in ICMP or ROLL to make it happen. I think we arrived at the Internet area for the draft since part of MLE helps with 6LoWPAN ND, other functions help with ROLL RPL parent selection. I think we made these generic so others with similar needs could make use of MLE without necessarily using either 6LoWPAN ND or ROLL RPL. That said, if ROLL is interested in this draft, Richard Kelsey (the drafts author) has plenty of experience there :-) Don On 6/15/12 3:32 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" wrote: >Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not immediately clear to me >how tied MLE should be to RPL - if it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link >establishment, then it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should >not be tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& >conventions etc., that do not apply universally). > >I guess I'm expressing some sort of support for Don's position... > >-- >Thomas Heide Clausen >http://www.thomasclausen.org/ > >"Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to > discuss it." > -- Mitchell's Law of Committees > > >On 15 Jun 2012, at 01:43, Don Sturek wrote: > >> All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so >>will >> opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application....) >> >> Don >> >> >> >> On 6/14/12 1:13 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: >> >>> >>> In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that >>> MLE messages are sent using UDP. >>> >>> I want to suggest that MLE messages should be sent at least as IPv6 >>> ICMP messages. >>> >>> Further, I think that it could use the RPL type 155, and RPL would >>> allocate a new "code" codepoint. >>> >>> There would be some preference to have the general structure of MLE >>> match that of RPL, but I think that this isn't particularly a strong >>> requirement. Allocating a new ICMP type code for MLE alone might be >>> seen as excessive, but I can not speak for the folks in 6man. >>> >>> -- >>> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Roll mailing list >>> Roll@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 6lowpan mailing list >> 6lowpan@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From mcr@sandelman.ca Fri Jun 15 07:30:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0185921F8620; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:30:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.408 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.546, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hwMohASu44EL; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 830B121F87A0; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (desk.marajade.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.247]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09ABE8549; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:28:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id E6FCC98C2E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:30:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1F8B98C2D; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:30:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Don Sturek Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:30:45 -0400 Message-ID: <10344.1339770645@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" , Thomas Heide Clausen X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:30:48 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Don" =3D=3D Don Sturek writes: Don> We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE. ICMP = will Don> take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue i= f there Don> are additional information exchanges needed using MLE. I can't see a difference myself in "length of time", unless you mean time to change hardware/firmware/software. ICMP is even 4 bytes shorter than UDP. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT9tHFYqHRg3pndX9AQIRpwP9HQtqV4Vd1K9YKKUaoojKj45oeMHjGZ91 JyIGiCLt68JFckjtdf2zParPXmuvX34zcFSUNRFeg+ZzBm8AKQXcqhTw2myRyfBp IBgr7Ou1Ustk521qglIct4MOc60GnM8IgAILPNGKqfNveuxSdq0Zn/MH7Ph/MI4w wsP0uA3lfoM= =xNbW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 07:48:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D081F21F8797 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:48:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M2pemyJON8jx for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm30-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm30-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.237.86]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B3BD921F878B for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:48:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [66.94.237.195] by nm30.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:48:18 -0000 Received: from [98.139.244.53] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:48:18 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 14:48:17 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339771697; bh=T8h+qqj8CRezqE+pPTf+0wRQ4HMDJ5acTT+PMqBwpEI=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=kjp6qopJ+DebqwOXWOsFNW5XjCO/qrkNPbtMg4VeS9azLBf53rf2KucZiATOai5+PKi5xmvyLUinxxAoS1ZcW4zK0/cDgLIji5JeFqyLCuY4QPtldB7F8GvSI2V8epg/Td0lJWOwLu1d9PwsdypJAlfEyvfZ+YMk+f2idhOPS8k= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 982799.5990.bm@smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: .qiTxgkVM1k3aIeXEKHrtOlsGJJxuV6EL1j3Da0PgBhgAtj 5kE6DG_h1svGeQfTZi8M7OjjPLRU9EN2Qvr4McxQj0F9cXEHDxyEIK5YM31N DeyBhHLDupelzqlI3rtAWRIZSAh1fG0FoaROKwqxflNzLZtYbqd2zs.Q6wVP oAZrd0AbMlOSAhMickVD9k66kBk0k9pWQuTQfAQ.mrO7k30SICQuOtC0WEZv Zjkdxnp8aivqnI65HY_iQopcH.SCLhV.Z2LWQzmT_xmpiyVyQJRfWMQ6t8ra ou569zgbf8tr1eI68PxG8kmpkJ1Ml30amt.XaMr39etG.Jz7Rshyw.Db8Sm. mC1DujFt7Ih2oFxJahKOGy6mHCPoAanVHNJBZSsGdBmX7XGPuecbbXlmj_OJ GsTqyi3FtEaqi6ujM4c09zpX1uQQhySHiVMrvMoSBtmp.F.kMxlUWXWLkxse azJ_MFKBWuO3QR1h8h9MsZINnCJsiQX7eZLRARwuFDEbLLkBfkwj8jZ5le00 hvExBopTKApKBVcrqQ1wS5VM5KA-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [192.168.43.94] (d.sturek@208.54.80.212 with login) by smtp115.sbc.mail.bf1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 07:48:17 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:45:15 -0700 Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <10344.1339770645@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" , Thomas Heide Clausen X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 14:48:22 -0000 Hi Michael, It is the process needed to make additions to ICMP. We have multiple implementers using the existing MLE draft so we also are trying to get closure if we can since we plan to being commercial certification shortly. To us, MLE provides the features we need and there is ownership that does not rely on ourside work groups. If others find use in MLE (and we believe they will) then it is offered as a draft to the IETF community. If the protocol fundamentally changes and has dependencies on other groups, I would doubt it would be ready for implementation in our timeframe. Don On 6/15/12 7:30 AM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > >>>>>> "Don" == Don Sturek writes: > Don> We believe UDP makes the most sense as a transport for MLE. >ICMP will > Don> take entirely too long and will end up being a maintenance issue >if there > Don> are additional information exchanges needed using MLE. > >I can't see a difference myself in "length of time", unless you mean >time to change hardware/firmware/software. > >ICMP is even 4 bytes shorter than UDP. > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > From ietf@thomasclausen.org Fri Jun 15 03:32:16 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C4C21F85B6; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dcy4d7nMMngf; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FD6321F85A1; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE407557F4B; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692A31C0864; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.129.61.101] (37-8-178-84.coucou-networks.fr [37.8.178.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AFBB51C07CC; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 03:32:13 -0700 (PDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Thomas Heide Clausen Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:32:17 +0200 To: Don Sturek X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:53:47 -0700 Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:32:16 -0000 Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not immediately clear to me ho= w tied MLE should be to RPL - if it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link esta= blishment, then it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be= tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& conventions etc= ., that do not apply universally). I guess I'm expressing some sort of support for Don's position... --=20 Thomas Heide Clausen http://www.thomasclausen.org/ "Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to discuss it." -- Mitchell's Law of Committees On 15 Jun 2012, at 01:43, Don Sturek wrote: > All sounds fantastic but we don't have time for all these changes so will > opt to use MLE as written using UDP ( at least for our application....) >=20 > Don >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 6/14/12 1:13 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: >=20 >>=20 >> In draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt it says that >> MLE messages are sent using UDP. >>=20 >> I want to suggest that MLE messages should be sent at least as IPv6 >> ICMP messages. =20 >>=20 >> Further, I think that it could use the RPL type 155, and RPL would >> allocate a new "code" codepoint. >>=20 >> There would be some preference to have the general structure of MLE >> match that of RPL, but I think that this isn't particularly a strong >> requirement. Allocating a new ICMP type code for MLE alone might be >> seen as excessive, but I can not speak for the folks in 6man. >>=20 >> --=20 >> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Roll mailing list >> Roll@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 6lowpan mailing list > 6lowpan@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan From ietf@thomasclausen.org Fri Jun 15 06:15:36 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AA021F86D9; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TVQ5SjMiDjpx; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABDFC21F86CE; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C718557FB1; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA9F41BCC2A8; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [192.168.147.115] (mtg91-1-82-227-24-173.fbx.proxad.net [82.227.24.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 27DBB1BCC2A5; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:15:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Thomas Heide Clausen In-Reply-To: <16656.1339765933@marajade.sandelman.ca> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:15:36 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <6FE0075D-CB42-4FE1-A5D2-20330917542C@thomasclausen.org> References: <2E20BD63-02D7-4275-A3C1-2E070D9BB90E@thomasclausen.org> <16656.1339765933@marajade.sandelman.ca> To: Michael Richardson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 07:53:47 -0700 Cc: "" , "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org> X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:15:36 -0000 On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote: >=20 >>>>>> "Thomas" =3D=3D Thomas Heide Clausen = writes: > Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not > Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if > Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then > Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not = be > Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& > Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally).=20 >=20 > Thomas, you will note that: > 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such = push > back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a = type/code. > 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. >=20 In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such = that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context = (special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and = specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment. > I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. I don't. Thomas > --=20 > Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20= > IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >=20 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jun 15 08:30:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FAA221F887A; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:30:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.486 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.486 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EVd82JNZpvNJ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:30:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22E1D21F844F; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:30:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-04.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.20 Message-ID: <20120615153049.15977.55302.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 08:30:49 -0700 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:30:49 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IET= F. Title : Duplicate Address Detection Proxy Author(s) : Fabio Costa Xavier Pougnard Hongyu Li Filename : draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-04.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2012-06-15 Abstract: The document describes a mechanism allowing the use of Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) by IPv6 nodes in a point-to-multipoint architecture with "split-horizon" forwarding scheme. Based on the DAD signalling, the first hop router stores in a Binding Table all known IPv6 addresses used on a point-to-multipoint domain (e.g. VLAN). When a node performs DAD for an address already used by another node, the first hop router replies instead of this last one. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-04 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From ietf@thomasclausen.org Fri Jun 15 09:28:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE8621F846F; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Z4H-9-3FOUDM; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D415321F8467; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 591F755809E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AC51C6E5B; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.147.40.163] (37-8-181-55.coucou-networks.fr [37.8.181.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BEC81C6DBA; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:28:09 -0700 (PDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Thomas Heide Clausen Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:28:16 +0200 To: Don Sturek X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:40:56 -0700 Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:28:12 -0000 On 15 Jun 2012, at 15:57, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Thomas (and Michael), >=20 > I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL. The draft was written carefully > to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL. That said, the deployment we > are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL (non-storing) > and I think many others will find the information exchanged between > neighbors using MLE as useful. >=20 > Don >=20 Hi Don, Note that I was replying to Michael's suggestions that MLE be married to RPL= . If you think it's not, then MLE should neither be developed in ROLL nor be c= onstrained by RPL code-points, messages or principles. Thomas > On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" wrote:= >=20 >>=20 >> On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote: >>=20 >>>=20 >>>>>>>> "Thomas" =3D=3D Thomas Heide Clausen write= s: >>> Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not >>> Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if >>> Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then >>> Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be >>> Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& >>> Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally). >>>=20 >>> Thomas, you will note that: >>> 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push >>> back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a >>> type/code. >>> 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. >>>=20 >>=20 >> In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such >> that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context >> (special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and >> specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment. >>=20 >>> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. >>=20 >> I don't. >>=20 >> Thomas >>=20 >>> --=20 >>> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 >=20 From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 09:41:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8670321F84CD for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:41:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.554 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3jtuM-1RPNJM for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm25.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com (nm25.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com [98.139.52.222]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C370721F84AC for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.52.192] by nm25.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 16:41:41 -0000 Received: from [68.142.200.225] by tm5.bullet.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 16:41:41 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.114] by t6.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 16:41:41 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1019.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 16:41:41 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 768814.50266.bm@omp1019.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 67846 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2012 16:41:41 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339778501; bh=sqYeNsM7HukDm1JDpjqvfaK6Q1Gp2P8GtCdl7cqTV4c=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=ZjmkeCutl+cudL7Ib0H4Zwl3v5K3gV/QLyOQl+nNHJpjTIAd5im4XZzhoKiGIz5kG22KiQN8T2a4lKaie84qsN59j+X1kfsFKsqYhXj4FxCSHz+gZSi/PZR3jtdl1vUHhE0uEX2JYrjMQquUZJpbpRD92dEgEy7WIqeTCBqp9HQ= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: wKmM17sVM1kKnkMaOCweySlem2c7yoBvWlAyCqkZFuAXroK Xbi_TXDmuAF0K4z_v4a1JBv4ONbS2.QfYyxvosB.kD46h1gxSd.Bc3H4xAF6 SkxUZIAfbPnqJFgfhVt6.4AykgpifQZqJwApXIdkuwJ6idBRBuc9Bf7pt0zq BBIsmXiadHPG.qjZ5G6jOLjd7extnoy.87tiK45kmrteNpqXtq7blIIY4iEv U4aUWGHnoZB2yOVdoqGeQcvK4G3iSrtVpzQkBChwEitk_1NKDvd0.dJfX6mQ l3pQnQy9EUGf1qI46riG6UaLvcxsQfpe5JOySXHkbgRD5FYS5y8Z2fX2zSuG 30j_llEuqRfUQY.RINEYidTY7R5qtBo2SLEf1TZSYMOsDHefa6Cw2cq_MYYp aUSLpGcRaIsC9I_stk5yPOKFGJg8uRZrWe_Hzwn.CYS11ps5fgspC0lxY1Sm 7dFfeYic8XszjQc6S9JLkp6G_U7m1o20aPIicdOcFtXQTfPOv7oZf5yAuV8q 3kcTCzxhJ3YrGjjE- X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [10.242.10.205] (d.sturek@208.54.15.4 with login) by smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 09:41:39 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:41:32 -0700 Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt From: Don Sturek To: Thomas Heide Clausen Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:41:46 -0000 Hi Thomas, I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard: That is from memory, am I correct?) Don On 6/15/12 9:28 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" wrote: > >On 15 Jun 2012, at 15:57, Don Sturek wrote: > >> Hi Thomas (and Michael), >> >> I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL. The draft was written >>carefully >> to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL. That said, the deployment we >> are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL >>(non-storing) >> and I think many others will find the information exchanged between >> neighbors using MLE as useful. >> >> Don >> > >Hi Don, > >Note that I was replying to Michael's suggestions that MLE be married to >RPL. > >If you think it's not, then MLE should neither be developed in ROLL nor >be constrained by RPL code-points, messages or principles. > > >Thomas > >> On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" >>wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen writes: >>>> Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not >>>> Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if >>>> Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then >>>> Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be >>>> Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& >>>> Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally). >>>> >>>> Thomas, you will note that: >>>> 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push >>>> back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a >>>> type/code. >>>> 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. >>>> >>> >>> In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such >>> that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context >>> (special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and >>> specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment. >>> >>>> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. >>> >>> I don't. >>> >>> Thomas >>> >>>> -- >>>> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >>>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ >>>> >>> >> >> From d.sturek@att.net Fri Jun 15 10:07:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C61521F8568 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:07:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kFS4li+cb0bh for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm33.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm33.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [98.138.229.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C50A21F856F for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:07:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.138.90.54] by nm33.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 17:07:02 -0000 Received: from [98.138.226.56] by tm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 17:07:02 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp207.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 15 Jun 2012 17:07:02 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1339780022; bh=6PeKJUeKDzwrcFWPtnuBYXX2p1pS5hOr8D1chWCnP6c=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Date:Subject:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=IFPR06OJdpmawQV2DdE+3IsXcuPLcNLhQb2zdhy1BeDCLQON2D0kqGJoJcA6la3dzAnzTSxVihkbZKMoSAnxxU10GSSp9PfPolRze2cfeQeS1hsf/0vzYPv+bBdYUSzPIYMVD1VFBVp9RjsVN6H6XBYZsPEBDwjC4sBXKYDhpHE= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 287445.86789.bm@smtp207.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: MQlAV9QVM1kx8PzkVLU8V8P3uFiJWlVTpqzTc1Si9kXU.I9 vy_VXUx3G6M8L8FgiEdh4Hs0UNDrLEFNsS3tm4WC5BDjORtRIjiUlBTjipEJ bgEe2kqoHDnl45qmpExo6DpkP1uZmpM8p0W9iHyF5CV5QdQ._38tMZYWpQoL HkuR84BMfFZHL6vQAvl9yjZdRL5XqA9y9fuwXN7hAU7hlru3hNz7v8itvhJw 8Nxvs34ADTBzjC_jfVhwyrQMZm_.2wScNOOmqY0yA_E7C5BN7lnOaaieOB6v TxkmVL6PtJ9ZWqdVW2U47Dj__XpJGPA7pgvucGYStv9qve4.MHxfG3RndtD5 SfV2K73ppot936DoPs0FcKBNtmA5vFGIRwMcFXaL0NW8PPOaJ_RT_jfnL.uW Uoc2h327l9LSCwBeavrmxlVpl6.Zr4bvKXpVRKmGBF5a23MknIh3RYs0_xA3 R0KmF56smveY5JgifKzOBJ0wUdqJapk21lC5n5TJioxOHF1NZjsjXa0A4iRw - X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from 100.165.83.40 (d.sturek@208.54.80.212 with plain) by smtp207.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Jun 2012 10:07:01 -0700 PDT Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 12:06:49 -0500 Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt Message-ID: From: Don Sturek To: Thomas Heide Clausen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:07:06 -0000 SGkgVGhvbWFzLAoKRmFpciBlbm91Z2guICBJIGRvIGtub3cgd2UgYXZvaWRlZCBtYWtpbmcgdGhl IGRyYWZ0IFJQTCBzcGVjaWZpYyBzbyBsb29rIGZvcndhcmQgdG8gaGVhcmluZyBmcm9tIHRoZSBp bnRhcmVhIEFEcyBvbiB3aGVyZSB3ZSBzaG91bGQgZGlyZWN0IHRoZSBkcmFmdC4KCkRvbgoKU2Vu dCBmcm9tIFQtTW9iaWxlIEcyIHdpdGggR29vZ2xlCgpUaG9tYXMgSGVpZGUgQ2xhdXNlbiA8aWV0 ZkB0aG9tYXNjbGF1c2VuLm9yZz4gd3JvdGU6Cgo+SGkgRG9uLAo+Cj4KPk9uIDE1IEp1biAyMDEy LCBhdCAxODo0MSwgRG9uIFN0dXJlayA8ZC5zdHVyZWtAYXR0Lm5ldD4gd3JvdGU6Cj4KPj4gSGkg VGhvbWFzLAo+PiAKPj4gSSB0aGluayBvdXIgcGxhbiB3YXMgdG8gc3VibWl0IGl0IHRvIHRoZSBJ bnRlcm5ldCBBcmVhIGRpcmVjdGx5IChSaWNoYXJkOgo+PiBUaGF0IGlzIGZyb20gbWVtb3J5LCBh bSBJIGNvcnJlY3Q/KQo+PiAKPgo+SWYgdGhhdCdzIHRoZSBjYXNlLCB0aGVuIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhh dCBpdCBuZWVkcyB0byBiZSBzY29wZWQgY2FyZWZ1bGx5OiB0aGUgZGVzaWduIGFuZCBkaXJlY3Rp b24gb2YgdGhlIHdvcmsgcmVxdWlyZWQgd291bGQgKElNTykgYmUgdmVyeSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgaWYg aXQgYWltcyBuYXJyb3dseSBmb3IgUlBMLCBvciBicm9hZGx5IGZvciAiTUVTSCIsIGFuZCB0aGUg dGV4dCBpbiB0aGUgc3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbiBzaG91bGQgYmUgdmVyeSB2ZXJ5IGNsZWFyIGFzIHRv IHRoaXMuCj4KPklmIGFuIEFEIHNwb25zb3JlZCBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIGlzIHRoZSBpbnRlbmQsIHRo ZW4gSSBkbyBob25lc3RseSBub3Qga25vdyB3aGF0IHRoZSBwcm9wZXIgd2F5IG9mIHNoYXBpbmcg dGhlIHByb2Nlc3MgLyBmb3J1bSBmb3IgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbnMgLyBmcmFtaW5nIG9mIHRoZSBzcGVj aWZpY2F0aW9uIHdvdWxkIGJlLCBidXQgSSB3b3VsZCBob3BlIHRoYXQgYW4gQUQgY291bGQgY2hp cnAgaW4gKGFzIHlvdSBzYXkgSU5ULCBoYXZlIHlvdSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgdGhpcyB3aXRoIEJyaWFu IG9yIFJhbHBoLCBhbmQgY291bGQgeW91IG9yIGVpdGhlciBvZiB0aGVtIGxldCB1cyBrbm93PykK Pgo+Tm90ZSwgSSBhbSBub3QgdGFraW5nIHBvc2l0aW9uIGZvciBvciBhZ2FpbnN0IE1MRSBhdCBh bGwgLSBJIGp1c3Qgd2FudCB0byBlbnN1cmUgdGhhdCBhIHNwZWNpZmljYXRpb24gcHVibGlzaGVk IGJlIHNjb3BlZCBzbyBhcyB0byBub3QgYmUgY29uc3RyYWluaW5nIGZvciBkb21haW5zIGZvciB3 aGljaCBpdCBoYXNuJ3QgYmVlbiBkaXNjdXNzZWQuCj4KPlRob21hcwo+Cj4KPj4gRG9uCj4+IAo+ PiAKPj4gCj4+IE9uIDYvMTUvMTIgOToyOCBBTSwgIlRob21hcyBIZWlkZSBDbGF1c2VuIiA8aWV0 ZkB0aG9tYXNjbGF1c2VuLm9yZz4gd3JvdGU6Cj4+IAo+Pj4gCj4+PiBPbiAxNSBKdW4gMjAxMiwg YXQgMTU6NTcsIERvbiBTdHVyZWsgPGQuc3R1cmVrQGF0dC5uZXQ+IHdyb3RlOgo+Pj4gCj4+Pj4g SGkgVGhvbWFzIChhbmQgTWljaGFlbCksCj4+Pj4gCj4+Pj4gSSBkb24ndCBhZ3JlZSB0aGF0IE1M RSB0YXJnZXRzIG9ubHkgUlBMLiAgVGhlIGRyYWZ0IHdhcyB3cml0dGVuCj4+Pj4gY2FyZWZ1bGx5 Cj4+Pj4gdG8gYXZvaWQgaGF2aW5nIGEgbmFycm93IGZvY3VzIGFyb3VuZCBSUEwuICBUaGF0IHNh aWQsIHRoZSBkZXBsb3ltZW50IHdlCj4+Pj4gYXJlIHVzaW5nIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgZm9yIHVzZXMg NkxvV1BBTiwgNkxvV1BBTiBORCwgUk9MTCBSUEwKPj4+PiAobm9uLXN0b3JpbmcpCj4+Pj4gYW5k IEkgdGhpbmsgbWFueSBvdGhlcnMgd2lsbCBmaW5kIHRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBleGNoYW5nZWQg YmV0d2Vlbgo+Pj4+IG5laWdoYm9ycyB1c2luZyBNTEUgYXMgdXNlZnVsLgo+Pj4+IAo+Pj4+IERv bgo+Pj4+IAo+Pj4gCj4+PiBIaSBEb24sCj4+PiAKPj4+IE5vdGUgdGhhdCBJIHdhcyByZXBseWlu ZyB0byBNaWNoYWVsJ3Mgc3VnZ2VzdGlvbnMgdGhhdCBNTEUgYmUgbWFycmllZCB0bwo+Pj4gUlBM Lgo+Pj4gCj4+PiBJZiB5b3UgdGhpbmsgaXQncyBub3QsIHRoZW4gTUxFIHNob3VsZCBuZWl0aGVy IGJlIGRldmVsb3BlZCBpbiBST0xMIG5vcgo+Pj4gYmUgY29uc3RyYWluZWQgYnkgUlBMIGNvZGUt cG9pbnRzLCBtZXNzYWdlcyBvciBwcmluY2lwbGVzLgo+Pj4gCj4+PiAKPj4+IFRob21hcwo+Pj4g Cj4+Pj4gT24gNi8xNS8xMiA2OjE1IEFNLCAiVGhvbWFzIEhlaWRlIENsYXVzZW4iIDxpZXRmQHRo b21hc2NsYXVzZW4ub3JnPgo+Pj4+IHdyb3RlOgo+Pj4+IAo+Pj4+PiAKPj4+Pj4gT24gSnVuIDE1 LCAyMDEyLCBhdCAxNToxMiAsIE1pY2hhZWwgUmljaGFyZHNvbiB3cm90ZToKPj4+Pj4gCj4+Pj4+ PiAKPj4+Pj4+Pj4+Pj4gIlRob21hcyIgPT0gVGhvbWFzIEhlaWRlIENsYXVzZW4gPGlldGZAdGhv bWFzY2xhdXNlbi5vcmc+IHdyaXRlczoKPj4+Pj4+ICBUaG9tYXM+IE5vdCBzdXJlIGhvdyBmYW50 YXN0aWMgKG9yIG5vdCkgaXQgaXMgLSBpdCBpcyBub3QKPj4+Pj4+ICBUaG9tYXM+IGltbWVkaWF0 ZWx5IGNsZWFyIHRvIG1lIGhvdyB0aWVkIE1MRSBzaG91bGQgYmUgdG8gUlBMIC0gaWYKPj4+Pj4+ ICBUaG9tYXM+IGl0IHRydWx5IGFpbXMgYXQgYmVpbmcgZm9yIF9NRVNIXyBsaW5rIGVzdGFibGlz aG1lbnQsIHRoZW4KPj4+Pj4+ICBUaG9tYXM+IGl0IHdvdWxkIGFwcGVhciB0byBiZSBhIG11Y2gg bGFyZ2VyIHNjb3BlLCBhbmQgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCBiZQo+Pj4+Pj4gIFRob21hcz4gdGllZCBuYXJy b3dseSB0byBhIHNwZWNpYWwtcHVycG9zZSBwcm90b2NvbCdzIHR5cGUtc3BhY2UgKCYKPj4+Pj4+ ICBUaG9tYXM+IGNvbnZlbnRpb25zIGV0Yy4sIHRoYXQgZG8gbm90IGFwcGx5IHVuaXZlcnNhbGx5 KS4KPj4+Pj4+IAo+Pj4+Pj4gVGhvbWFzLCB5b3Ugd2lsbCBub3RlIHRoYXQ6Cj4+Pj4+PiAxKSBJ IHN1Z2dlc3RlZCBpdCBnbyB1bmRlciBJUHY2IElDTVAgZmlyc3QsIGFuZCBpZiB0aGVyZSB3YXMg c3VjaCBwdXNoCj4+Pj4+PiAgIGJhY2sgYWJvdXQgYWxsb2NhdGluZyBhIG5ldyB0eXBlLCB0aGF0 IFJQTCBjb3VsZCBhbGxvY2F0ZSBhCj4+Pj4+PiB0eXBlL2NvZGUuCj4+Pj4+PiAyKSBaaWdCZWUg YWxsaWFuY2UgKHRoZSBwcm9wb3NhbCksICpJUyogdXNpbmcgUlBMLgo+Pj4+Pj4gCj4+Pj4+IAo+ Pj4+PiBJbiB0aGF0IGNhc2UsIHRoZSBkcmFmdCBtdXN0IGJlIHZlcnkgbmFycm93bHkgc2NvcGVk IGFuZCB3cml0dGVuIHN1Y2gKPj4+Pj4gdGhhdCBpdCdzIGNsZWFyIHRoYXQgaXQncyBhcHBsaWNh YmxlIF9vbmx5XyB0byB0aGF0IGNvbnRleHQKPj4+Pj4gKHNwZWNpYWwtcHVycG9zZSBkZXBsb3lt ZW50cyBvZiBhIHNwZWNpYWwtcHVycG9zZSBwcm90b2NvbCksIGFuZAo+Pj4+PiBzcGVjaWZpY2Fs bHkgdG8gbm90IHByZXRlbmQgdG8gZG8gZ2VuZXJhbCBtZXNoIGxpbmsgZXN0YWJsaXNobWVudC4K Pj4+Pj4gCj4+Pj4+PiBJIHNlZSBydW5uaW5nIGl0IG92ZXIgVURQIHZlcnkgYXJjaGl0ZWN0dXJh bGx5IHN0cmFuZ2UuCj4+Pj4+IAo+Pj4+PiBJIGRvbid0Lgo+Pj4+PiAKPj4+Pj4gVGhvbWFzCj4+ Pj4+IAo+Pj4+Pj4gLS0gCj4+Pj4+PiBNaWNoYWVsIFJpY2hhcmRzb24gPG1jcitJRVRGQHNhbmRl bG1hbi5jYT4sIFNhbmRlbG1hbiBTb2Z0d2FyZSBXb3Jrcwo+Pj4+Pj4gSUVURiBST0xMIFdHIGNv LWNoYWlyLiAgICBodHRwOi8vZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvd2cvcm9sbC9jaGFydGVyLwo+ Pj4+Pj4gCj4+Pj4+IAo+Pj4+IAo+Pj4+IAo+PiAKPj4gCg== From ietf@thomasclausen.org Fri Jun 15 09:59:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB38D21F8595; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:59:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zCsVonQqSE5I; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0214721F853D; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 910E3557F50; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755041BD6C5E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:59:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.147.40.163] (37-8-181-55.coucou-networks.fr [37.8.181.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E5CBD1BD6C5F; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:59:10 -0700 (PDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <6EBA154B-EFDC-4E46-B04F-D86546B4F07E@thomasclausen.org> X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Thomas Heide Clausen Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:18 +0200 To: Don Sturek X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:17:41 -0700 Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:59:13 -0000 Hi Don, On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek wrote: > Hi Thomas, >=20 > I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard: > That is from memory, am I correct?) >=20 If that's the case, then I think that it needs to be scoped carefully: the d= esign and direction of the work required would (IMO) be very different if it= aims narrowly for RPL, or broadly for "MESH", and the text in the specifica= tion should be very very clear as to this. If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do honestly not know wha= t the proper way of shaping the process / forum for discussions / framing of= the specification would be, but I would hope that an AD could chirp in (as y= ou say INT, have you discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could you or ei= ther of them let us know?) Note, I am not taking position for or against MLE at all - I just want to en= sure that a specification published be scoped so as to not be constraining f= or domains for which it hasn't been discussed. Thomas > Don >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 6/15/12 9:28 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" wrote:= >=20 >>=20 >> On 15 Jun 2012, at 15:57, Don Sturek wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi Thomas (and Michael), >>>=20 >>> I don't agree that MLE targets only RPL. The draft was written >>> carefully >>> to avoid having a narrow focus around RPL. That said, the deployment we= >>> are using this draft for uses 6LoWPAN, 6LoWPAN ND, ROLL RPL >>> (non-storing) >>> and I think many others will find the information exchanged between >>> neighbors using MLE as useful. >>>=20 >>> Don >>>=20 >>=20 >> Hi Don, >>=20 >> Note that I was replying to Michael's suggestions that MLE be married to >> RPL. >>=20 >> If you think it's not, then MLE should neither be developed in ROLL nor >> be constrained by RPL code-points, messages or principles. >>=20 >>=20 >> Thomas >>=20 >>> On 6/15/12 6:15 AM, "Thomas Heide Clausen" >>> wrote: >>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> On Jun 15, 2012, at 15:12 , Michael Richardson wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>>>>>> "Thomas" =3D=3D Thomas Heide Clausen wri= tes: >>>>> Thomas> Not sure how fantastic (or not) it is - it is not >>>>> Thomas> immediately clear to me how tied MLE should be to RPL - if >>>>> Thomas> it truly aims at being for _MESH_ link establishment, then >>>>> Thomas> it would appear to be a much larger scope, and should not be >>>>> Thomas> tied narrowly to a special-purpose protocol's type-space (& >>>>> Thomas> conventions etc., that do not apply universally). >>>>>=20 >>>>> Thomas, you will note that: >>>>> 1) I suggested it go under IPv6 ICMP first, and if there was such push= >>>>> back about allocating a new type, that RPL could allocate a >>>>> type/code. >>>>> 2) ZigBee alliance (the proposal), *IS* using RPL. >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> In that case, the draft must be very narrowly scoped and written such >>>> that it's clear that it's applicable _only_ to that context >>>> (special-purpose deployments of a special-purpose protocol), and >>>> specifically to not pretend to do general mesh link establishment. >>>>=20 >>>>> I see running it over UDP very architecturally strange. >>>>=20 >>>> I don't. >>>>=20 >>>> Thomas >>>>=20 >>>>> --=20 >>>>> Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >>>>> IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/= >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >=20 >=20 From bob.hinden@gmail.com Fri Jun 15 10:43:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1521011E80A3; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.427 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.172, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vAJrFO3V-LM4; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4D7B21F861F; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcsq13 with SMTP id q13so2118058qcs.31 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id :cc:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=Phu/EYQl6QWn22KEye/5MJd/FGm18ODojnpjQkHNtgU=; b=xgbXS2Y5bhUt1JIjjPhObC5Gz/fn14sUZX08AzKzLm8H4eZTkgG95Fa/GCHxfMtYzK hXbxnG6nAmZzkHOeU24+BRbu6VQYe4cJU/MUBLcxKgi7nPWJeDAT+3sjvkjbSkQN4PIw mfOWQv6FBIMxrWL4Mle4+NEU6xp3kg24pErkiS6hDmAVyVRLeE3as3VABGZaOaip4Ufh bep5UC7QJdQ4PJWTFScncmiWyeZsd6xC5PLxNaEIc23iWPRUPWi/W7yerk8bfQd+53m7 leBK8qFogzXgR80BUf9yxLu7xFNm46E4OgRI/M+04sZQ+WXFWMeolIhJY/3nBCx7HAWP am7g== Received: by 10.224.209.193 with SMTP id gh1mr12762946qab.21.1339782222270; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.224.217] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ev6sm1821500qab.4.2012.06.15.10.43.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Bob Hinden Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Request To Advance: Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:43:38 -0700 Message-Id: <8A70665B-62AD-49FF-B855-89871F8C4F7B@gmail.com> To: Brian Haberman , Ralph Droms Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: iesg-secretary@ietf.org, Bob Hinden , 6man Mailing List X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:43:46 -0000 Brian & Ralph, On behalf of the 6MAN WG, the chairs request the advancement of: Title : Duplicate Address Detection Proxy Author(s) : Fabio Costa Xavier Pougnard Hongyu Li Filename : draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-04.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2012-06-15 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy-04.txt as a Proposed Standard. A two week 6MAN working group last call was = completed on May 10, 2012. This version of the draft resolves a few = issues raised during the last call. The chairs believe there is a = consensus in the w.g. to move this document forward. Regards, Bob Hinden & Ole Tr=F8an 6MAN chairs From richard.kelsey@ember.com Fri Jun 15 10:44:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AB4D21F867B; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:44:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vSrlFGE4GzxL; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p01c11o149.mxlogic.net (p01c11o149.mxlogic.net [208.65.144.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B88A21F864E; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:44:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from unknown [216.236.254.3] (EHLO p01c11o149.mxlogic.net) by p01c11o149.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.14.0-1) with ESMTP id 1747bdf4.5674f940.40732.00-564.102062.p01c11o149.mxlogic.net (envelope-from ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:44:17 -0600 (MDT) X-MXL-Hash: 4fdb747102445f15-e59dbdcc1581da98a51caaa2df48e1b18d25f826 Received: from unknown [216.236.254.3] (EHLO usmail.ember.com) by p01c11o149.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-6.14.0-1) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id 1247bdf4.0.40401.00-379.101205.p01c11o149.mxlogic.net (envelope-from ); Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:43:05 -0600 (MDT) X-MXL-Hash: 4fdb7429441ceccb-1840f6b5b4ab7b70f9090aa284514fb949903a7f Received: from kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com (192.168.81.75) by usmail.ember.com (192.168.80.105) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.283.3; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:42:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:38:10 -0400 Message-ID: <87lijojx19.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> To: Thomas Heide Clausen In-Reply-To: <6EBA154B-EFDC-4E46-B04F-D86546B4F07E@thomasclausen.org> (message from Thomas Heide Clausen on Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:18 +0200) Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt From: Richard Kelsey X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, OOF, AutoReply References: <6EBA154B-EFDC-4E46-B04F-D86546B4F07E@thomasclausen.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Originating-IP: [192.168.81.75] X-Spam: [F=0.2000000000; CM=0.500; S=0.200(2010122901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [216.236.254.3] X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.0 cv=C9BeP3z+ c=1 sm=0 a=MYqPJgym4Kx47q1P90kooQ==:17 a] X-AnalysisOut: [=u0NvnAFnSA0A:10 a=OFb--ukilxYA:10 a=saA6nF2ZJaAA:10 a=BLc] X-AnalysisOut: [eEmwcHowA:10 a=OQ_ktunLAAAA:8 a=pJo66KLIAAAA:8 a=HZJGGiqLA] X-AnalysisOut: [AAA:8 a=lt3peZ0jL1c_Qe6UbLgA:9 a=Qmq8LIWCQqsA:10 a=HeoGohO] X-AnalysisOut: [dMD0A:10] Cc: roll@ietf.org, 6lowpan@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:44:20 -0000 Hi Thomas, As Don said, the intent is that MLE not be tied to RPL and that it be submitted as an AD-sponsored submission. I have spoken with Ralph about it on several occasions. We both would have preferred that MLE go through a WG, but there doesn't seem to be an appropriate one. If MLE were intended for use exclusively with ROLL (or MANET or 6LoWPAN), this wouldn't be an issue. Ralph and I discussed it again yesterday, and decided to go with an AD-sponsored submission. My plan was to add some clarifications to the draft before announcing it to the usual suspects (6lowpan, MANET, ROLL). This thread jumped the gun by a day or two. -Richard Kelsey > From: Thomas Heide Clausen > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:18 +0200 > > Hi Don, > > On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek wrote: > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard: > > That is from memory, am I correct?) > > > > If that's the case, then I think that it needs to be scoped > carefully: the design and direction of the work required would > (IMO) be very different if it aims narrowly for RPL, or broadly > for "MESH", and the text in the specification should be very > very clear as to this. > > If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do honestly > not know what the proper way of shaping the process / forum for > discussions / framing of the specification would be, but I > would hope that an AD could chirp in (as you say INT, have you > discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could you or either of > them let us know?) > > Note, I am not taking position for or against MLE at all - I > just want to ensure that a specification published be scoped so > as to not be constraining for domains for which it hasn't been > discussed. > > Thomas From ietf@thomasclausen.org Fri Jun 15 10:50:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEA3121F8658; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:50:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.869 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.869 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id feL3ql5p6Mmh; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F89821F850B; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41D125580D9; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:50:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3BB91BE16A6; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.147.40.163] (37-8-181-55.coucou-networks.fr [37.8.181.55]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5A5381BE16A5; Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT) References: <6EBA154B-EFDC-4E46-B04F-D86546B4F07E@thomasclausen.org> <87lijojx19.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> In-Reply-To: <87lijojx19.fsf@kelsey-ws.hq.ember.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Thomas Heide Clausen Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 19:50:41 +0200 To: Richard Kelsey X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 10:55:01 -0700 Cc: "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 17:50:33 -0000 Dear Richard, Thank you for the clarifications, I appreciate it. I look forward to the next version, which I will endeavor to review carefull= y with what you state below in mind. Best, Thomas --=20 Thomas Heide Clausen http://www.thomasclausen.org/ "Any simple problem can be made insoluble if enough meetings are held to discuss it." -- Mitchell's Law of Committees On 15 Jun 2012, at 19:38, Richard Kelsey wrote: > Hi Thomas, >=20 > As Don said, the intent is that MLE not be tied to RPL and that > it be submitted as an AD-sponsored submission. I have spoken > with Ralph about it on several occasions. We both would have > preferred that MLE go through a WG, but there doesn't seem to be > an appropriate one. If MLE were intended for use exclusively > with ROLL (or MANET or 6LoWPAN), this wouldn't be an issue. >=20 > Ralph and I discussed it again yesterday, and decided to go with > an AD-sponsored submission. My plan was to add some clarifications > to the draft before announcing it to the usual suspects (6lowpan, > MANET, ROLL). This thread jumped the gun by a day or two. >=20 > -Richard Kelsey >=20 >> From: Thomas Heide Clausen >> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 18:59:18 +0200 >>=20 >> Hi Don, >>=20 >> On 15 Jun 2012, at 18:41, Don Sturek wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi Thomas, >>>=20 >>> I think our plan was to submit it to the Internet Area directly (Richard= : >>> That is from memory, am I correct?) >>>=20 >>=20 >> If that's the case, then I think that it needs to be scoped >> carefully: the design and direction of the work required would >> (IMO) be very different if it aims narrowly for RPL, or broadly >> for "MESH", and the text in the specification should be very >> very clear as to this. >>=20 >> If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do honestly >> not know what the proper way of shaping the process / forum for >> discussions / framing of the specification would be, but I >> would hope that an AD could chirp in (as you say INT, have you >> discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could you or either of >> them let us know?) >>=20 >> Note, I am not taking position for or against MLE at all - I >> just want to ensure that a specification published be scoped so >> as to not be constraining for domains for which it hasn't been >> discussed. >>=20 >> Thomas From cabo@tzi.org Sun Jun 17 13:01:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512B421F8607; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:01:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.609 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.360, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uYT4CuGC80TM; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F0AC21F84D9; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:00:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5HK0jD0015418; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:00:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.217.117] (p54892585.dip.t-dialin.net [84.137.37.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4A020A55; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:00:45 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Subject: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-05 From: Carsten Bormann Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:00:44 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1C6943B9-8860-4331-9129-9D610FC7A661@tzi.org> To: "apps-discuss@ietf.org application-layer protocols" , draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis.all@tools.ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:37:52 -0700 Cc: 6man@ietf.org, The IESG X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 20:01:01 -0000 I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see = http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate ). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Gruesse, Carsten --------------------------------- Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-05 Title: Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) Reviewer: Carsten Bormann Review Date: 2012-06-17 IETF Last Call Date: 2012-06-01, for 2012-06-15 IESG Telechat Date: 2012-06-21 ** Summary: This document is ready for publication after some editorial fixes, but it could benefit from some additional documentation as specified below. ** (Major:) Three types of address selection are often relevant to applications: -- initiator address selection (source and destination). This appears to be addressed here. -- responder address selection. This is mostly relevant where the responder cannot simply turn around the addresses chosen by the initiator. This may be because of multicast, or because of API deficiencies. -- listening address selection. An application needs to select the addresses to bind to. Experience from the ETSI CoAP plugfest shows that all three types of address selection are likely stumbling blocks when building an IPv6 implementation of a UDP-based protocol. RFC 3484 only seems to address initiator address selection, so it is logical that a -bis follows suit (but then, the security considerations seem to discuss responder address selection). Still, this is a major problem that maybe can be solved in additional documents. I believe the specification needs to be much clearer on who is its = target. The document does not fully indicate which part of a system is supposed = to act on its mandates. It just says The selection rules specified in this document MUST NOT be = construed to override an application or upper-layer's explicit choice = of a legal destination or source address. so there seems to be an assumption some part of the system other than an application or "upper-layer" may or should act on it. It then goes ahead and identifies getaddrinfo() explicitly as a target for destination address selection and "the network layer" for source address selection unless done by the application. Are other parts of a system subject to these mandates? Should an application writer that finds a working getaddrinfo() and a network layer read this document? Should an application layer protocol specification have to reference this document? There is also an assumption that the part of the system responsible for implementing this specification has certain information available to it (e.g., some knowledge is required to detect IPv4-converted addresses as such). This should be made much more explicit. ** (Minor:) Define term "scoped address prefix". (Maybe a section on terms would be useful; this could also be used to expand the many unexplained abbreviations used.) Last paragraph of 5 gives a "MUST be implemented" to Rule 2 only. -> expressio unius est exclusio alterius So clearly there is no MUST for the other rules? ** (Nit:) 2.1, in the paragraph "One effect", clarify that the document at this point hasn't said everything that is needed to derive this. As in: "As will become apparent later, ..." 3.1 could be explicit instead of being posed as a riddle. 5, 6: Saying every single rule twice (once for xA re xB and then for xB re xA) is tiring. From tsavo.stds@gmail.com Mon Jun 18 04:39:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCB321F85A2 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 04:39:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wZENiKN1Ed7W for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 04:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0265921F85A1 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 04:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so6876603dac.31 for <6man@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 04:39:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=lEmfSMyuwb50clwzSfy5BBvt0KVDGWn0soEbDXV3QYs=; b=hvhKQHYRirVqkSzt9QSgnapC7fpseCRP6TZp27UhYg3uabT4d78Y/w5jClsoRpj1Cr /IAIJshLkZaUcpzkd70a/mnvQkd4XPOGx25TheTyQjiiXt49v8zSkd1LkgVe6QAsboe7 MNXLDXOTMr1WUQIwVSlgnols75DB8MqKYfH9vE95Aj9QWxV+6gB2UZrdJcALdVSghJu+ mPfHQ2IezdV9W4v/grPhFHDxC5n12lWar7MV5PiAWIv3TRbfZToEjbacP4OcZLW+AJ/O A5J0t5SpiSKew3n7jcFnLfkwcBH/ntCF4xUBSWZKljdApvyWO2co06fKbwJKnKIe8TrM NjTg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.221.74 with SMTP id qc10mr8650583pbc.31.1340019548747; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 04:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.54.138 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jun 2012 04:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:39:08 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Synchronization of hosts' periodical communications From: Teemu Savolainen To: 6man@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff2432b31f7bb04c2bd9d59 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:16:56 -0700 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:39:09 -0000 --e89a8ff2432b31f7bb04c2bd9d59 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Greetings 6man WG, We have just published a draft about:"Optimal Transmission Window Configuration Option for ICMPv6 Router Advertisement" http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savolainen-6man-optimal-transmission-window-00.txt Abstract: --- This specification describes an ICMPv6 Router Advertisement option for a router to configure optimal transmission window for hosts transmitting packets through the router. --- The RA already contains information host needs to address itself ("what") and for selecting default and more specific routers ("where"). The intent of this draft is to describe "when" would be the most appropriate time for hosts to transmit, if they can choose (i.e. this is not to be used to slow down active user experience or necessarily affect to real-time apps). The intent is to synchronize periodical "idle-mode" communications of several hosts behind a resource constrained gateway/router. For example, if a low-power sensor network is provided Internet connectivity through a battery powered gateway (e.g. a handset), it is beneficial to minimize number of times the gateway's radio needs to be activated. For example, if there were two nodes behind such a gateway sending messages out every two minutes, the number of gateway's radio activation times can be halved by ensuring the two nodes send periodical message about (but not exactly) at the same time. In this case, as the second radio activation can be avoided, the gateway's uplink radio power consumption can be about halved. We would like to present this draft and some measurements in the Vancouver IETF meeting. However, we would also like to hear some comments from 6man WG prior the IETF - especially if there is interest/objection for this piece of work. Best regards, Teemu --e89a8ff2432b31f7bb04c2bd9d59 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings 6man WG,

We have just published a draft about:"Optima= l Transmission Window Configuration Option for ICMPv6 Router Advertisement&= quot;

http://tools.ietf.org/internet= -drafts/draft-savolainen-6man-optimal-transmission-window-00.txt

Abstract:
---
=A0=A0 This specification describes an ICMPv6 Route= r Advertisement option
=A0=A0 for a router to configure optimal transmis= sion window for hosts
=A0=A0 transmitting packets through the router.---

The RA already contains information host needs to address itself ("= ;what") and for selecting default and more specific routers ("whe= re"). The intent of this draft is to describe "when" would b= e the most appropriate time for hosts to transmit, if they can choose (i.e.= this is not to be used to slow down active user experience or necessarily = affect to real-time apps).

The intent is to synchronize periodical "idle-mode" communica= tions of several hosts behind a resource constrained gateway/router. For ex= ample, if a low-power sensor network is provided Internet connectivity thro= ugh a battery powered gateway (e.g. a handset), it is beneficial to minimiz= e number of times the gateway's radio needs to be activated. For exampl= e, if there were two nodes behind such a gateway sending messages out every= two minutes, the number of gateway's radio activation times can be hal= ved by ensuring the two nodes send periodical message about (but not exactl= y) at the same time. In this case, as the second radio activation can be av= oided, the gateway's uplink radio power consumption can be about halved= .

We would like to present this draft and some measurements in the Vancou= ver IETF meeting.

However, we would also like to hear some comments = from 6man WG prior the IETF - especially if there is interest/objection for= this piece of work.

Best regards,

Teemu



--e89a8ff2432b31f7bb04c2bd9d59-- From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Wed Jun 20 01:19:37 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D6421F8741 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:19:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jwti8gIE63dr for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FC921F8740 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:19:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so2556470eaa.31 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:19:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date :message-id:to:mime-version:x-mailer; bh=p+MzjwAIYb7Z5dxfIRRBQGJaBm7RivQtavs6xhCKD2o=; b=ctdN5arOKj9NtxFmcEEtKp7pJSosRO/pw5ICfdI5KQGYbqrpiGjyd8XEj+RNJNEuth +MaCKGtxjXO7mxRD2VzJT6gW0jd9p7oTEl2sn39COLK9UVv3GbvMUV6Y9BlRChvDTfLv xDPwUzfCja1J8pGFmyLS0Xy7OcaL4FLQgchD5z+RPB1/ZpZbcemdySgqDOx7RB3TJexK IE7GBcMrRzmNW5Nk1WgvJooJ4XePRhRDe9+q+KY/9VT1Sz/l9MU/AmOXtDHi0hrmsyCR 3/eokMsvNmbxVSQQ7kEGArrhdgrJ2FUm3MyV+YBdPR03Z5rCfZ8ffrSKxrfYIbdS/Cg3 HAGg== Received: by 10.14.98.200 with SMTP id v48mr4719687eef.6.1340180375287; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:19:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:44ff:fd17:9143:be74:fe02:92c7? ([2001:420:44ff:fd17:9143:be74:fe02:92c7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a16sm87065040eeg.0.2012.06.20.01.19.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 01:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: 6man IETF84 Call for agenda items Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:19:27 +0200 Message-Id: <8235F7AF-AB32-46C1-8E65-549928CB69F6@employees.org> To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 08:19:37 -0000 As we had in Paris, we have a one 2-hour slot planned for the 6man = working group session in Vancouver. If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please let = the chairs/list know. We will prioritise drafts that are working group items, drafts that have = been actively discussed on the list and other individual submissions in that order. Please have agenda items to us by 2012-07-13 and also note the following = deadlines for IETF84: 2012-07-09 Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission = by 17:00 PT (UTC -7) 2012-07-16 Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT (UTC -7) 2012-07-18 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC = -7) Best regards, Bob & Ole= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jun 20 04:33:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE6221F870B; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:33:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.34 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.34 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, SARE_SUB_OBFU_Z=0.259, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CP4vuC5eaQkG; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4897421F86FD; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:33:56 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.20 Message-ID: <20120620113356.15560.39139.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:33:56 -0700 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 11:33:57 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IET= F. Title : IPv6 UDP Checksum Considerations Author(s) : Godred Fairhurst Magnus Westerlund Filename : draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06.txt Pages : 32 Date : 2012-06-20 Abstract: This document examines the role of the UDP transport checksum when used with IPv6, as defined in RFC2460. It presents a summary of the trade-offs for evaluating the safety of updating RFC 2460 to permit an IPv6 UDP endpoint to use a zero value in the checksum field as an indication that no checksum is present. This method is compared with some other possibilities. The document also describes the issues and design principles that need to be considered when UDP is used with IPv6 to support tunnel encapsulations. It concludes that UDP with a zero checksum in IPv6 can safely be used for this purpose, provided that this usage is governed by a set of constraints. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-udpzero There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6man-udpzero-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From tsavo.stds@gmail.com Thu Jun 21 07:46:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B492C21F86F7 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:46:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.448 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o1Ga0+rB8h+j for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:46:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BD921F86B8 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:46:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so1017900dac.31 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:46:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8QoB/hM8FkMDMDO8fsxHPx+MJqtQIWHEPfsk6+ev0ZY=; b=girsTgafFmVUsTVT9h8e4kHn+E3W3M0oXvyFWE0/SrOJxBmfgzwHHrYOWRsDkE2MfJ HS0PzfxPHjT8XmtueSWmT3bO9YvfJ4wbHtYJiQdbUzsnnTP4oMajhwuUo7S4ZpOWQAnD waKR05y8iDo7CNRDhWoRMjlI5eZxSrIZylM8DPDUHZaiD+KJEB6pQ4jHUfykOE/50IFy BE2B50cWlpJ5Buad7q5DazsGtgbyRDfO4GOcndQuSwFrlhTMUq7ylSjuBVg78qUcLz6G 8RPaJMxxBeHoY7NrxaowfWlwgG4CVwGgpk888ysRnIrx8476nMjoBSuTi9hCW1xuglBg x/FQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.236.34 with SMTP id ur2mr55825651pbc.108.1340289964956; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.54.138 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:46:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <8235F7AF-AB32-46C1-8E65-549928CB69F6@employees.org> References: <8235F7AF-AB32-46C1-8E65-549928CB69F6@employees.org> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:46:04 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6man IETF84 Call for agenda items From: Teemu Savolainen To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d9a841dcd604c2fc9363 Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:46:05 -0000 --047d7b33d9a841dcd604c2fc9363 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I would like to have a slot to present draft-savolainen-6man-optimal-transmission-window-00.txt (and I would hope discussion on list - and it seems the email I sent has not appeared - I'll repost). Best regards, Teemu 2012/6/20 Ole Tr=F8an > > > As we had in Paris, we have a one 2-hour slot planned for the 6man workin= g > group session > in Vancouver. If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please let > the chairs/list know. > We will prioritise drafts that are working group items, drafts that have > been actively > discussed on the list and other individual submissions in that order. > > Please have agenda items to us by 2012-07-13 and also note the following > deadlines for IETF84: > > 2012-07-09 Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission b= y > 17:00 PT (UTC -7) > 2012-07-16 Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT (UTC -7) > 2012-07-18 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC > -7) > > Best regards, > Bob & Ole > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > --047d7b33d9a841dcd604c2fc9363 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi,

I would like to have a slot to present draft-savolainen-6man-opt= imal-transmission-window-00.txt (and I would hope discussion on list - and = it seems the email I sent has not appeared - I'll repost).

Best = regards,

Teemu

2012/6/20 Ole Tr=F8an <otro= an@employees.org>


As we had in Paris, we have a one 2-hour slot planned for the 6man working = group session
in Vancouver. If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please let the= chairs/list know.
We will prioritise drafts that are working group items, drafts that have be= en actively
discussed on the list and other individual submissions in that order.

Please have agenda items to us by 2012-07-13 and also note the following de= adlines for IETF84:

2012-07-09 Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission by = 17:00 PT (UTC -7)
2012-07-16 Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT (UTC -7)
2012-07-18 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC -7= )

Best regards,
Bob & Ole
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--047d7b33d9a841dcd604c2fc9363-- From tsavo.stds@gmail.com Thu Jun 21 07:47:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D92C21F8709 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:47:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZv6iWcmiLV6 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF35621F8707 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbcwy7 with SMTP id wy7so2279724pbc.31 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=oGJ1Y45R7LymXqyyGTOOovp+9wYQSFUaZPbdQQVEbXQ=; b=AqTJOkhLXdNxjkD93qQRKasWegbI+r5n7ajQoXyw+piARFpZhkpPKZG3cP6bHPJyyD 7Q30L6pUPHyd4PognoCq2vmWF0C1jsgz1bOU0Xw0jO357R0oFkJdCiYzQSpRdAhUe8Fe UpxS8gzfVaxfmzAwgh+hbEsQAlA2l6yVF2M7nI9YnwtUpmGgUvWH4/38pAUHIZlx/J0u 8yJllIRbHIRznfPXP38NKWVnmcZsticDiKseZ7mjYYkaofRJr2aUa4Ty/CDO+JNDVC4V KRdS11j3YGSjxCmDP1FKnzUjIrA5OkcGwtSSzNj/0j1t772aNPXWz8/v1K7EvWJyofkx tGBA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.221.74 with SMTP id qc10mr8519071pbc.31.1340290039529; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.54.138 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:47:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:47:19 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: New draft about synchronizing hosts' periodical communications From: Teemu Savolainen To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff2432bb3bfd804c2fc97fc X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 14:47:20 -0000 --e89a8ff2432bb3bfd804c2fc97fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Greetings 6man WG, We have just published a draft about:"Optimal Transmission Window Configuration Option for ICMPv6 Router Advertisement" http://tools.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savolainen-6man-optimal-transmission-window-00.txt Abstract: --- This specification describes an ICMPv6 Router Advertisement option for a router to configure optimal transmission window for hosts transmitting packets through the router. --- The RA already contains information host needs to address itself ("what") and for selecting default and more specific routers ("where"). The intent of this draft is to describe "when" would be the most appropriate time for hosts to transmit, if they can choose (i.e. this is not to be used to slow down active user experience or necessarily affect to real-time apps). The intent is to synchronize periodical "idle-mode" communications of several hosts behind a resource constrained gateway/router. For example, if a low-power sensor network is provided Internet connectivity through a battery powered gateway (e.g. a handset), it is beneficial to minimize number of times the gateway's radio needs to be activated. For example, if there were two nodes behind such a gateway sending messages out every two minutes, the number of gateway's radio activation times can be halved by ensuring the two nodes send periodical message about (but not exactly) at the same time. In this case, as the second radio activation can be avoided, the gateway's uplink radio power consumption can be about halved. We would like to present this draft and some measurements in the Vancouver IETF meeting. However, we would also like to hear some comments from 6man WG prior the IETF - especially if there is interest/objection for this piece of work. Best regards, Teemu --e89a8ff2432bb3bfd804c2fc97fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings 6man WG,

We have just published a draft about:"Optima= l Transmission Window Configuration Option for ICMPv6 Router Advertisement&= quot;

http://tools.ietf.org/internet= -drafts/draft-savolainen-6man-optimal-transmission-window-00.txt

Abstract:
---
=A0=A0 This specification describes an ICMPv6 Route= r Advertisement option
=A0=A0 for a router to configure optimal transmis= sion window for hosts
=A0=A0 transmitting packets through the router.---

The RA already contains information host needs to address itself ("= ;what") and for selecting default and more specific routers ("whe= re"). The intent of this draft is to describe "when" would b= e the most appropriate time for hosts to transmit, if they can choose (i.e.= this is not to be used to slow down active user experience or necessarily = affect to real-time apps).

The intent is to synchronize periodical "idle-mode" communica= tions of several hosts behind a resource constrained gateway/router. For ex= ample, if a low-power sensor network is provided Internet connectivity thro= ugh a battery powered gateway (e.g. a handset), it is beneficial to minimiz= e number of times the gateway's radio needs to be activated. For exampl= e, if there were two nodes behind such a gateway sending messages out every= two minutes, the number of gateway's radio activation times can be hal= ved by ensuring the two nodes send periodical message about (but not exactl= y) at the same time. In this case, as the second radio activation can be av= oided, the gateway's uplink radio power consumption can be about halved= .

We would like to present this draft and some measurements in the Vancou= ver IETF meeting.

However, we would also like to hear some comments = from 6man WG prior the IETF - especially if there is interest/objection for= this piece of work.

Best regards,

Teemu
--e89a8ff2432bb3bfd804c2fc97fc-- From mcr@sandelman.ca Thu Jun 21 19:04:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3C4A21F8594; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:04:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.603 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.603 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZQbnhuWxkoy5; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [67.23.6.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24EEF21F8503; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandelman.ca (wlan203.sandelman.ca [209.87.252.203]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6020F84D9; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:01:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id C4E9A98C2F; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:04:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: from marajade.sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B2A98C2D; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:04:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Michael Richardson To: Thomas Heide Clausen Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <6EBA154B-EFDC-4E46-B04F-D86546B4F07E@thomasclausen.org> References: <6EBA154B-EFDC-4E46-B04F-D86546B4F07E@thomasclausen.org> X-Mailer: MH-E 8.3; nmh 1.3-dev; XEmacs 21.4 (patch 22) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:04:40 -0400 Message-ID: <32622.1340330680@marajade.sandelman.ca> Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca Cc: "" , "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org> X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 02:04:43 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>>> "Thomas" =3D=3D Thomas Heide Clausen writes: Thomas> If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do Thomas> honestly not know what the proper way of shaping the process Thomas> / forum for discussions / framing of the specification would Thomas> be, but I would hope that an AD could chirp in (as you say Thomas> INT, have you discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could Thomas> you or either of them let us know?) AD sponsored submission is more than enough process. (it could go via independent submission easily too) Unless I missed something, the only proceedural thing MLE needs is a UDP port number, which is available via Expert Review.=20=20 Zigbee could publish MLE itself if it wanted to, but I understand that it may have application beyond the links defined/used by Zigbee. =2D-=20 Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works=20 IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iQCVAwUAT+PSuIqHRg3pndX9AQKmOwQAhpA3jf8KLaGjMRBBJNQAy4hPioTtK6GJ qBX8YHg4UgqmiyNG9Wx16VJXllI7AWkZCXF4TbtkD6ernrvtjXmBB80s76+mR0jx 0wNu5Nkl30qJLb4x86bBd+6tdHSOZFhwwe4tZBd2fir9noIOf29+FUQny0iby9er hMxborokYbs= =e+Xa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=-- From d.sturek@att.net Thu Jun 21 19:14:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86E2721F8622 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.51 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2jA-QAzK89QJ for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm19-vm0.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm19-vm0.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.44.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0343921F861A for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:14:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.44.99] by nm19.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2012 02:14:07 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.68] by tm4.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2012 02:14:07 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1005.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Jun 2012 02:14:07 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 74777.88650.bm@omp1005.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 24075 invoked from network); 22 Jun 2012 02:14:06 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1340331246; bh=1T9TXREwILjiUYTpcIcNoRbDqxPSozdbBCwA39WZfSk=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:CC:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:In-Reply-To:Mime-version:Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; b=OI3uF87N7YVQeLLh6dTauI5pO+Flgur+WwrIMWnyugWwJx4Zd8ldjjhVlWEBKTDFlz+i38OsmZx/zx07dPdKKPE3l52xoXMc46L73enF4swSuEFX2OUiTYk73817NBLujz61D/ruAGnh47TqJsgCJoKvC/ftKyptMqRNcjd6K8c= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 4ynG0ZUVM1la0bjkc20jnm71uNG.6slAq.01eRt2J0URVxp dA7KELGmCeyy1TFHSlMZjI6UQOMDlN2LQZDKC14TVLcH1llW6ScEA5F3nRUm GyPsfbsq1Rwz9ylPq5p23VNGoy9MNnKRe2Pp7dQ07_OUpas2SlcZmYCC7pTu uAk1BP4w1eEK5sDhSYib1ZHt5m44bxmW7p1LUz8beb3tpUPbW8bkGIQEApYg 94Im8hr4rwKwW3euSJekT1YTf28_sha_JLej2A5_vh_uzvcCTu_zJCcuVP7V sm_KPlb.wXyQmwsBnIWbB6gG5zL23gwlFs0zQyy6gPMAGD1q1HB0VkIvixKc aHli5VbdJJjA.P26ULYkV6UR4U8QmERthCJhtVBczfd2GZb_UbItjMm964ez Hk2tT2MaUHW9fNgNUqIFQS0aPj2E2_lh5qXisXVlTyQ2QSNlfUg7GO1.zFMS pxYjI0rFw0MFMow1QEXmVVrSf5qcjTSvM4Hv02eHwHGWc11VElfZgLMP7Lzk n X-Yahoo-SMTP: fvjol_aswBAraSJvMLe2r1XTzhBhbFxY8q8c3jo- Received: from [192.168.0.192] (d.sturek@69.224.126.218 with login) by smtp106.sbc.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Jun 2012 19:14:01 -0700 PDT User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.2.120421 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:13:56 -0700 Subject: Re: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt From: Don Sturek To: Michael Richardson , Thomas Heide Clausen Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [6lowpan] [Roll] draft-kelsey-intarea-mesh-link-establishment-03.txt In-Reply-To: <32622.1340330680@marajade.sandelman.ca> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Cc: "" , "" , "<6lowpan@ietf.org>" <6lowpan@ietf.org>, "" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 02:14:11 -0000 We (the ZigBee Alliance) will request a port number to use with MLE. After discussion this week at the ZigBee Alliance members meeting, we will follow the AD sponsored draft route. We will elicit input from as many related IETF WG's who might be interested in MLE> We look forward to comments from 6LoWPAN, ROLL and others on the draft (including Thomas who has generously provided input already). Don On 6/21/12 7:04 PM, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Heide Clausen writes: > Thomas> If an AD sponsored submission is the intend, then I do > Thomas> honestly not know what the proper way of shaping the process > Thomas> / forum for discussions / framing of the specification would > Thomas> be, but I would hope that an AD could chirp in (as you say > Thomas> INT, have you discussed this with Brian or Ralph, and could > Thomas> you or either of them let us know?) > >AD sponsored submission is more than enough process. >(it could go via independent submission easily too) > >Unless I missed something, the only proceedural thing MLE needs is a UDP >port number, which is available via Expert Review. >Zigbee could publish MLE itself if it wanted to, but I understand that >it may have application beyond the links defined/used by Zigbee. > >-- >Michael Richardson , Sandelman Software Works >IETF ROLL WG co-chair. http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/roll/charter/ > From brian@innovationslab.net Tue Jun 26 13:47:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FEE211E80E0 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:47:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hf0A08GwB5Js for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A23111E809C for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8DA688099; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from clemson.local (nat-gwifi.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71AA1140039; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FEA1FC1.501@innovationslab.net> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:46:57 -0400 From: Brian Haberman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy@tools.ietf.org, 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org> Subject: AD review : draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: 6man WG X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:47:02 -0000 Hi all, I have completed my AD review of draft-ietf-6man-dad-proxy. I have some comments/suggestions/questions that should be addressed prior to advancing it along the publication chain. 1. The primary basis for this document is that in a point-to-multipoint network with split-horizon forwarding, nodes cannot communicate directly with one another. However, the Introduction does not give a crisp definition of split-horizon forwarding. I suggest that there be a brief sub-section of the Introduction that describes the model and the difficulties that arise from it. 2. In conjunction with #1, I would suggest re-ordering the Introduction. Conceptually, I think it makes more sense to open the intro with what is currently the second paragraph. This makes a crisp statement of what is being defined in this document and why. The new sub-section provides the motivation and working environment for this function. I would suggest dropping the last sentence of the current 2nd paragraph of the Introduction ("However, if it is necessary..."). 3. I am not sure if the third paragraph of the Introduction is needed. Can't an aggregation device delineate devices by including additional information (e.g., interface ID or draft-ietf-6man-lineid) in the identification process? 4. Section 2 * s/(IPv6) document [RFC4861]/(IPv6) [RFC4861]/ * s/Autoconfiguration document [RFC4862]/Autoconfiguration [RFC4862]/ * Expand the first occurrence of "DSL". 5. Section 3 * Even though the CPEs cannot communicate directly with one another, aren't they considered to be on the same link (i.e., share a single IPv6 prefix)? If that is the case, the first paragraph is misleading and should be re-worded. 6. Section 3.1 * s/set to solicited-node multicast/set to the solicited-node multicast/ * s/nodes on a same link/nodes on the same link/ * s/the NS messages are received/the NS messages to be received/ * s/by other nodes/by any node currently using the tentative address/ * s/from a CPE would be forwarded/from a CPE are forwarded/ * s/by AN only/by the AN only/ * s/That said,// * s/DAD per [RFC4862]/DAD, as defined in RFC 4862,/ * s/without an additional helper/without additional help/ 7. Section 3.2 * s/different IP links/different links/ * s/when AN/the AN/ * The second paragraph is a little confusing since it states that CPEs are on different links, but they really aren't. It would be useful to have a crisp definition of "on-link" in order to set the expectations in this document. 8. Section 3.3 * s/its default router using/its default routers using/ * I would re-word the last paragraph as : "This mechanism requires modifications in all hosts in order to support the Address Registration option." 9. Section 3.4 * s/mobile nodes when these last ones/mobile nodes when they/ * This section should also point out that the use of the MIPv6 would require all hosts to add support for RFC 6275. 10. Section 4.1 * There are several places in this section that appear to try and specify how the proxy should be implemented. I would suggest re-wording this section to omit saying how and focus on what needs to be maintained. An example to look at is how the NDP RFC uses conceptual variables and the relationships between those variables. 11. Section 4.2 - s/address as source/address as the source/ 12. Section 4.2.1 - s/with following/with the following/ 13. Section 4.2.2 * As a meta comment, I think this draft would benefit from having a state diagram that allows the reader to visualize the comparisons between the Binding Table variables and the Neighbor Cache. * In the handling of the case where the Neighbor Cache entry contains a different link-layer address (bullet #2), can you make some recommendation on how to handle the situation even though this is a case that violates a key assumption of this approach (all nodes do DAD)? I would also suggest dropping the last sentence of the bullet. * 3rd bullet - I am not sure how an implementation gets to the state described. The Binding Table contains an entry for the target IPv6 address but with a different link-layer address. If that is the case, why would the Neighbor Cache not have an entry for that IPv6 address? Is there a difference in how the entries are maintained between the Binding Table and the Neighbor Cache? 14. Section 4.2.3.2 * Rather than specifying all the fields of the NA message, I would suggest simply referencing RFC 4861 and its rules for sending a solicited NA in response to a DAD-driven NS. * The last paragraph states that all CPEs must support RFC 6085. Does that violate the requirement to not have changes in the nodes? Regards, Brian From dthaler@microsoft.com Tue Jun 26 15:53:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 694B811E80D6 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:53:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.703 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.703 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.104, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d7bXBf8492BP for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF7511E80BC for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail87-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.231) by CH1EHSOBE007.bigfish.com (10.43.70.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:46 +0000 Received: from mail87-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail87-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4F616032D; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -1 X-BigFish: VS-1(zzc89bh1432Izz1202hzzz2fh2a8h668h839h93fhd25hf0ah) Received-SPF: pass (mail87-ch1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=dthaler@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ; Received: from mail87-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail87-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1340751104902078_28293; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (snatpool3.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.227]) by mail87-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C1D400185; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by CH1EHSMHS007.bigfish.com (10.43.70.7) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:51:44 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.68) by TK5EX14MLTC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.5; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:53:25 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.4.28]) by TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.68]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:53:25 -0700 From: Dave Thaler To: jiten shah Subject: RE: Doubt in RFC 3484 Thread-Topic: Doubt in RFC 3484 Thread-Index: AQHNQiw8bXrypq7190eQkQO1LF5B6ZcNV0SggAAAG1A= Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:53:24 +0000 Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B678BAF@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B678B87@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B678B87@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:53:30 -0000 aml0ZW4gc2hhaCB3cml0ZXM6IA0KPiBDb25zaWRlciBhIHRvcG9sb2d5IHdoZXJlIHR3byByb3V0 ZXJzIGFyZSBjb25uZWN0ZWQgYmFjayB0byBiYWNrLiB0aGVzZSBsaW5rDQo+IGhhdmUgb25seSBh IElQdjYgbGluayBsb2NhbCBhZGRyZXNzLiBJIHdhbnQgdG8gcGluZyBhIGdsb2JhbCBhZGRyZXNz IG9uIHRoZQ0KPiBvdGhlciBzd2l0Y2ggdGhyb3VnaCB0aGlzIGxpbmsuIFJGQyAzNDg0IHNheXMg dGhhdCBmb3IgwqBzZWxlY3RpbmcgdGhlIHNvdXJjZQ0KPiBhZGRyZXNzIDoNCj4gDQo+IMKgSXQg aXMgUkVDT01NRU5ERUQgdGhhdCB0aGUgY2FuZGlkYXRlIHNvdXJjZSBhZGRyZXNzZXMgYmUgdGhl IHNldCBvZg0KPiDCoCDCoHVuaWNhc3QgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGFzc2lnbmVkIHRvIHRoZSBpbnRlcmZh Y2UgdGhhdCB3aWxsIGJlIHVzZWQgdG8gc2VuZA0KPiDCoCDCoHRvIHRoZSBkZXN0aW5hdGlvbi4g wqAoVGhlICJvdXRnb2luZyIgaW50ZXJmYWNlLikgwqBPbiByb3V0ZXJzLCB0aGUNCj4gwqAgwqBj YW5kaWRhdGUgc2V0IE1BWSBpbmNsdWRlIHVuaWNhc3QgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGFzc2lnbmVkIHRvIGFu eSBpbnRlcmZhY2UNCj4gwqAgwqB0aGF0IGZvcndhcmRzIHBhY2tldHMsIHN1YmplY3QgdG8gdGhl IHJlc3RyaWN0aW9ucyBkZXNjcmliZWQgYmVsb3cuDQpbLi4uXQ0KPiANCj4gU28gc2luY2UgaW4g bXkgdG9wb2xvZ3kgdGhlIG91dGdvaW5nIGxpbmsgZG9lcyBub3QgaGF2ZSBhIGdsb2JhbCB2NiBh ZGRyZXNzIEkNCj4gbmVlZCB0byB1c2UgYWRkcmVzcyBvbiBvdGhlciBpbnRlcmZhY2UgYnV0IEkg ZG8gbm90IHVuZGVyc3RhbmQgdGhlIGFib3ZlDQo+IGNvbmRpdGlvbi4gQ2FuIHNvbWVvbmUgc2lt cGxpZnkgaXQgb24gd2hhdCBiYXNpcyB3ZSBjYW4gdXNlIHRoZSBhZGRyZXNzZXMNCj4gb24gdGhl IG90aGVyIGludGVyZmFjZSA/IENhbiBzb21lIG9uZSBwbGVhc2UgZXhwbGFpbiBtZQ0KDQpTaW5j ZSB0aGUgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzIGxhbmd1YWdlIGlzIFJFQ09NTUVOREVEIGFuZCBNQVksIHlvdSdy ZSBmcmVlDQp0byB1c2UgYWRkcmVzc2VzIG9uIG90aGVyIGludGVyZmFjZXMgYW55IHRpbWUgeW91 IGhhdmUgYSBnb29kIHJlYXNvbiB0byBkbyBzby4NCkhlbmNlIGl0J3Mgb2sgdG8gdXNlIGEgZ2xv YmFsIGFkZHJlc3MgZnJvbSBhbm90aGVyIGludGVyZmFjZSBhcyB0aGUgc291cmNlIA0KYWRkcmVz cyBvZiBhIHBpbmcgaW4gdGhlIGNhc2UgeW91IGRlc2NyaWJlLg0KDQotRGF2ZQ0K From dthaler@microsoft.com Tue Jun 26 16:46:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC70711E80B5 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:46:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zshcSsz2DmGQ for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tx2outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (tx2ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [65.55.88.11]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4446511E809F for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:46:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail59-tx2-R.bigfish.com (10.9.14.237) by TX2EHSOBE011.bigfish.com (10.9.40.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:44:32 +0000 Received: from mail59-tx2 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail59-tx2-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C048C140100 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:44:32 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -6 X-BigFish: VS-6(zz1b0bM1432Izz1202hzzz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah) Received-SPF: pass (mail59-tx2: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=dthaler@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ; Received: from mail59-tx2 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail59-tx2 (MessageSwitch) id 1340754270706183_19443; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:44:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TX2EHSMHS034.bigfish.com (unknown [10.9.14.247]) by mail59-tx2.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98AC480218 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:44:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by TX2EHSMHS034.bigfish.com (10.9.99.134) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:44:30 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) by TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.3; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:46:10 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.4.28]) by TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.24.14]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:46:10 -0700 From: Dave Thaler To: "ipv6@ietf.org" Subject: 3484bis security considerations Thread-Topic: 3484bis security considerations Thread-Index: Ac1T9VSHnkt9OqeUTBScW/hekQcEGQ== Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:46:10 +0000 Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B678D14@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:46:16 -0000 FYI, Ben Campbell's GEN-ART review raised the following "minor issue", which resulted in the only DISCUSS on the document: > Minor issues: > > -- security considerations, 1st paragraph: "This document has no=20 > direct impact on Internet infrastructure security." >=20 > Can source and/or destination address selection could influence=20 > whether data is sent over and encrypted path? In particularly true > since section 7 allows the address selection to influence interface=20 > selection? If so, it's worth mentioning the fact, and considering=20 > whether an encrypted path vs unencrypted path should be considered > in the selection rules. Perhaps such decisions should be made prior > to following the rules in this draft--but if so it would be helpful to > explicitly say that. To address the above issue, I'm adding the following text to the security considerations section in between the 2nd and 3rd paragraph: + Similarly, most source and destination address selection algorithms, + including the one specified in this document, influence the choice + of network path taken (as do routing algorithms that are orthogonal + to, but used together with such algorithms) and hence whether data + might be sent over a path or network that might be more or less + trusted than other paths or networks. Administrators should consider + the security impact of the rows they configure in the prefix policy + table, just as they should consider the security impact of the + interface metrics used in the routing algorithms. -Dave From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jun 26 17:50:48 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2033D11E80EB; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q9Vz1xfAxbym; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:50:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE7C11E808D; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:50:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-06.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21 Message-ID: <20120627005044.26112.56411.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:50:44 -0700 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:50:48 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IET= F. Title : Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version = 6 (IPv6) Author(s) : Dave Thaler Richard Draves Arifumi Matsumoto Tim Chown Filename : draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-06.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2012-06-26 Abstract: This document describes two algorithms, one for source address selection and one for destination address selection. The algorithms specify default behavior for all Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) implementations. They do not override choices made by applications or upper-layer protocols, nor do they preclude the development of more advanced mechanisms for address selection. The two algorithms share a common context, including an optional mechanism for allowing administrators to provide policy that can override the default behavior. In dual stack implementations, the destination address selection algorithm can consider both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses - depending on the available source addresses, the algorithm might prefer IPv6 addresses over IPv4 addresses, or vice-versa. Default address selection as defined in this specification applies to all IPv6 nodes, including both hosts and routers. This document obsoletes RFC 3484. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-06 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From dthaler@microsoft.com Tue Jun 26 17:01:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8988211E80EE for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:01:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.755 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.755 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WXijsmTJOQNr for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92BEE11E80ED for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:01:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail12-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.252) by AM1EHSOBE009.bigfish.com (10.3.204.29) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:59:39 +0000 Received: from mail12-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail12-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE778260195 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:59:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -6 X-BigFish: VS-6(zz1b0bM1432Izz1202hzzz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah) Received-SPF: pass (mail12-am1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=dthaler@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ; Received: from mail12-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail12-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1340755176687333_16261; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from AM1EHSMHS012.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.231]) by mail12-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A63AC4A0083 for <6man@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:59:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by AM1EHSMHS012.bigfish.com (10.3.207.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:59:35 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) by TK5EX14HUBC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.80.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.309.3; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:01:15 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.4.28]) by TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.24.14]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:01:15 -0700 From: Dave Thaler To: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org> Subject: 3484bis security considerations Thread-Topic: 3484bis security considerations Thread-Index: Ac1T9VSHnkt9OqeUTBScW/hekQcEGQAAoa8g Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:01:14 +0000 Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B678D85@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:32:18 -0700 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:01:22 -0000 FYI, Ben Campbell's GEN-ART review raised the following "minor issue", whic= h resulted in the only DISCUSS on the document: > Minor issues: > > -- security considerations, 1st paragraph: "This document has no=20 > direct impact on Internet infrastructure security." >=20 > Can source and/or destination address selection could influence=20 > whether data is sent over and encrypted path? In particularly true=20 > since section 7 allows the address selection to influence interface=20 > selection? If so, it's worth mentioning the fact, and considering=20 > whether an encrypted path vs unencrypted path should be considered in=20 > the selection rules. Perhaps such decisions should be made prior to=20 > following the rules in this draft--but if so it would be helpful to=20 > explicitly say that. To address the above issue, I'm adding the following text to the security c= onsiderations section in between the 2nd and 3rd paragraph: + Similarly, most source and destination address selection algorithms, =20 + including the one specified in this document, influence the choice of=20 + network path taken (as do routing algorithms that are orthogonal to,=20 + but used together with such algorithms) and hence whether data might=20 + be sent over a path or network that might be more or less trusted=20 + than other paths or networks. Administrators should consider the=20 + security impact of the rows they configure in the prefix policy =20 + table, just as they should consider the security impact of the =20 + interface metrics used in the routing algorithms. -Dave From dthaler@microsoft.com Tue Jun 26 17:43:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ADAC11E80E8; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:43:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.749 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cXj-oqxtPnEg; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:43:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.204]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60D811E808D; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:43:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail92-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.234) by AM1EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (10.3.204.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:41:55 +0000 Received: from mail92-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail92-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149891C038E; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:41:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -24 X-BigFish: VS-24(zz9371I936eI1432I1447Izz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah) Received-SPF: pass (mail92-am1: domain of microsoft.com designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=dthaler@microsoft.com; helo=TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ; Received: from mail92-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail92-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1340757709871903_10296; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from AM1EHSMHS006.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.236]) by mail92-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C869922004D; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:41:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by AM1EHSMHS006.bigfish.com (10.3.207.106) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:41:49 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.68) by TK5EX14MLTC103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.174) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.298.5; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:43:23 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.4.28]) by TK5EX14MLTW652.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.68]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.003; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:43:23 -0700 From: Dave Thaler To: Carsten Bormann , "draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis.all@tools.ietf.org" Subject: RE: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-05 Thread-Topic: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-05 Thread-Index: AQHNTMP3t749DWEJD02t3bSbHHF85JcNVg9w Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:43:22 +0000 Message-ID: <9B57C850BB53634CACEC56EF4853FF653B678E6E@TK5EX14MBXW604.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <1C6943B9-8860-4331-9129-9D610FC7A661@tzi.org> In-Reply-To: <1C6943B9-8860-4331-9129-9D610FC7A661@tzi.org> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.com X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:32:18 -0700 Cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>, The IESG X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:43:45 -0000 Thanks for the review. Making the changes for -06 now, responses below... Carsten Bormann writes: > Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 1:01 PM > To: apps-discuss@ietf.org application-layer protocols; draft-ietf-6man- > rfc3484bis.all@tools.ietf.org > Cc: The IESG; 6man@ietf.org > Subject: APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-05 >=20 > I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for th= is > draft (for background on appsdir, please see > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate > ). >=20 > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you > may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD > before posting a new version of the draft. >=20 > Gruesse, Carsten >=20 > --------------------------------- >=20 > Document: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-05 > Title: Default Address Selection for Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) > Reviewer: Carsten Bormann > Review Date: 2012-06-17 > IETF Last Call Date: 2012-06-01, for 2012-06-15 IESG Telechat Date: 2012-= 06- > 21 >=20 > ** Summary: >=20 > This document is ready for publication after some editorial fixes, but it= could > benefit from some additional documentation as specified below. >=20 > ** (Major:) >=20 > Three types of address selection are often relevant to applications: > -- initiator address selection (source and destination). This appears to= be > addressed here. > -- responder address selection. This is mostly relevant where the respon= der > cannot simply turn around the addresses chosen by the initiator. This ma= y be > because of multicast, or because of API deficiencies. > -- listening address selection. An application needs to select the addre= sses to > bind to. > Experience from the ETSI CoAP plugfest shows that all three types of addr= ess > selection are likely stumbling blocks when building an > IPv6 implementation of a UDP-based protocol. > RFC 3484 only seems to address initiator address selection, so it is logi= cal that > a -bis follows suit (but then, the security considerations seem to discus= s > responder address selection). > Still, this is a major problem that maybe can be solved in additional > documents. Added the following text to section 2 (Context in Which the Algorithms Oper= ate): Although source and destination address selection is most typically done when initiating communication, a responder also must deal with address selection. In many cases this is trivially dealt with by an application using the source address of a received packet as the response destination, and the destination address of the received packet as the response source. Other cases, however, are handled like an initiator, such as when the request was multicast and hence source address selection must still occur when generating a response, or when the request includes a list of the initiator's addresses from which to choose a destination. Finally, a third application scenario is that of a listening application choosing on what local addresses to listen. This third scenario is out of scope for this document. > I believe the specification needs to be much clearer on who is its target= . > The document does not fully indicate which part of a system is supposed t= o > act on its mandates.=20 That's the intent of section 2. It already explicitly says that destinatio= n=20 address selection applies to APIs (which I've reworded as noted below, to say it applies to APIs such as getaddrinfo rather than being possibly read as just that one API in particular), and source address selection=20 applies to the IPv6 network layer implementation. > It just says > The selection rules specified in this document MUST NOT be con= strued > to override an application or upper-layer's explicit choice of= a > legal destination or source address. > so there seems to be an assumption some part of the system other than an > application or "upper-layer" may or should act on it. Section 2 does contain a paragraph explicitly targeted at apps, which is: Well-behaved applications SHOULD NOT simply use the first address returned from getaddrinfo() and then give up if it fails. For many applications, it is appropriate to iterate through the list of addresses returned from getaddrinfo() until a working address is found. For other applications, it might be appropriate to try multiple in parallel (e.g., with some small delay in between) and use the first one to succeed. Other than that paragraph the rest is already stated in section 2=20 to be targeted at APIs (for destination address selection) and=20 the IPv6 network layer (for source address selection). > It then goes ahead and identifies getaddrinfo() explicitly as a target fo= r > destination address selection and "the network layer" for source address > selection unless done by the application. =20 OLD: As a consequence, we intend that implementations of getaddrinfo() OLD: will use the destination address selection algorithm specified here OLD: to sort the list of IPv6 and IPv4 addresses that they return. NEW: As a consequence, we intend that implementations of APIs such as getad= drinfo() NEW: will use the destination address selection algorithm specified here NEW: to sort the list of IPv6 and IPv4 addresses that they return. > Are other parts of a system subject to these mandates? Yes, Section 2 already states: Separately, the IPv6 network layer will use the source address selection algorithm when an application or upper-layer has not specified a source address. Application of this specification to source address selection in an IPv4 network layer might be possible but this is not explored further here. > Should an application writer that finds a working > getaddrinfo() and a network layer read this document? The paragraph I mentioned in section 2 that explicitly targets application developers certainly applies. For the rest, I'm sure they'd find it useful= ,=20 but not required reading, and it would be odd for an application to claim conformance to this spec. The abstract already states: Default address selection as defined in this specification applies to all IPv6 nodes, including both hosts and routers. So they should gather from the abstract that it's not about an application implementation, but rather a host/router implementation. > Should an application layer protocol specification have to reference this > document? "have to"? No. "want to"? Perhaps, if they wanted to explain to the reader why they needed to define their own algorithm (if they did), or explain why they didn't need to discuss it because the defaults in this document are=20 sufficient. > There is also an assumption that the part of the system responsible for > implementing this specification has certain information available to it (= e.g., > some knowledge is required to detect IPv4-converted addresses as such). = This > should be made much more explicit. I think it goes without saying that anything used in a MUST that applies to a component (in this case an IPv6 network layer that explicitly supports SI= IT) has to have the relevant information available to it. In other words, it= =20 seems explicit already in the case you cite. > ** (Minor:) >=20 > Define term "scoped address prefix". Reworded as "address prefixes that are not of global scope" (to only use terms already used in section 1). > (Maybe a section on terms would be useful; this could also be used to exp= and > the many unexplained abbreviations used.) The abbreviations already existed in RFC 3484. However, I've now expanded them on first use (SIIT, ISATAP, etc.). > Last paragraph of 5 gives a "MUST be implemented" to Rule 2 only. > -> expressio unius est exclusio alterius > So clearly there is no MUST for the other rules? This was an oddity that already existed in RFC 3484. Moved up and reworded as a Discussion: point after rule 2. > ** (Nit:) >=20 > 2.1, in the paragraph "One effect", clarify that the document at this poi= nt > hasn't said everything that is needed to derive this. As in: > "As will become apparent later, ..." Done. > 3.1 could be explicit instead of being posed as a riddle. The above comment was too much of a riddle for me to understand. :) The text in Section 3.1 already seems pretty explicit. > 5, 6: Saying every single rule twice (once for xA re xB and then for xB r= e xA) is > tiring. Older consensus (RFC 3484) was that it was better to be explicit and there= =20 doesn't seem to be a significant gain in revisiting that and risking introd= ucing an error in some normative text in doing so. Hence no change. Thanks for the review, -Dave From fgont@si6networks.com Wed Jun 27 05:21:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BC121F8610 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:21:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A6-c6G+2X8fr for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EB2621F8691 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ldijon-156-65-32-229.w80-15.abo.wanadoo.fr ([80.15.111.229] helo=[192.168.1.14]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SjrF7-0001Gh-Va; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:21:12 +0200 Message-ID: <4FEAEDE7.5010303@si6networks.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:26:31 +0200 From: Fernando Gont Organization: SI6 Networks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipv6@ietf.org" Subject: New I-D on SLAAC DNS configuration problems (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues-00.txt) References: <20120615013626.31172.89725.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120615013626.31172.89725.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120615013626.31172.89725.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:21:20 -0000 Folks, We have published a new Internet-Draft entitled "Current issues with DNS Configuration Options for SLAAC". This draft if meant to address the SLAAC DNS configuration issues raised by Pavel on this mailing-list, and also discusses other potential issues. The I-D is available at: Any comments will be highly appreciated. Thanks! Best regards, Fernando -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues-00.txt Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 18:36:26 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: fgont@si6networks.com CC: pavlix@pavlix.net A new version of I-D, draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues Revision: 00 Title: Current issues with DNS Configuration Options for SLAAC Creation date: 2012-06-15 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 14 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues-00.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues-00 Abstract: RFC 6106 specifies two Neighbor Discovery options that can be included in Router Advertisement messages to convey information about DNS recursive servers and DNS Search Lists. Small lifetime values for the aforementioned options have been found to cause interoperability problems in those network scenarios in which these options are used to convey DNS-related information. This document analyzes the aforementioned problem, and formally updates RFC 6106 such that these issues are mitigated. The IETF Secretariat From fgont@si6networks.com Wed Jun 27 05:22:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7957821F8698 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:22:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id omYmWXVhbjr7 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:22:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [93.186.182.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4004621F8517 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ldijon-156-65-32-229.w80-15.abo.wanadoo.fr ([80.15.111.229] helo=[192.168.1.14]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SjrFw-0001Hk-Mm; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:22:00 +0200 Message-ID: <4FEAEF47.902@si6networks.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:32:23 +0200 From: Fernando Gont Organization: SI6 Networks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "ipv6@ietf.org" Subject: IPv6 extension headers with SLAAC X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:22:12 -0000 Folks, Since there's an ongoing poll for adoption of draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers, I just wanted to comment on the results of some recent tests with real-world implementations. IPv6 implementations such as that in *BSDs silently ignore NS and NA messages that employ fragmentation. This means that use of fragmentation with ND is not reliable, already. If anyone is interested in testing the behaviour of other implementations, please do let me know, and I'll provide the tools to do so. Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From fgont@si6networks.com Wed Jun 27 05:22:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 273C721F8606 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:22:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VUHotUNcYwkr for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [93.186.182.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D90121F85D6 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 05:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ldijon-156-65-32-229.w80-15.abo.wanadoo.fr ([80.15.111.229] helo=[192.168.1.14]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SjrGK-0001Id-3A; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:22:24 +0200 Message-ID: <4FEAF4D9.5000501@si6networks.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:56:09 +0200 From: Fernando Gont Organization: SI6 Networks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Subject: Re: 6man IETF84 Call for agenda items References: <8235F7AF-AB32-46C1-8E65-549928CB69F6@employees.org> In-Reply-To: <8235F7AF-AB32-46C1-8E65-549928CB69F6@employees.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 12:22:27 -0000 Hi, Ole, I'd like slots for presenting the following I-Ds: * draft-gont-6man-slaac-dns-config-issues (The topic has been discussed on list) * draft-gont-6man-managing-slaac-policy (This one was assigned a slot at the Paris IETF, but we ran out of time, and hence I couldn't present it) * draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers (Was discussed at the Paris IETF, and 6man is currently being polled about its adoption) * draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain (Was discussed at the Paris IETF, and 6man is currently being polled about its adoption) * draft-gont-6man-predictable-fragment-id (Was discused at the Paris IETF, and there seemed to be consensus on working on this one -- my take is that 6man shoudl probably be polled about adoption of this document either before or during the next IETF) P.S.: Please ack. Thanks! Best regards, Fernando On 06/20/2012 10:19 AM, Ole Trĝan wrote: > > > As we had in Paris, we have a one 2-hour slot planned for the 6man working group session > in Vancouver. If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please let the chairs/list know. > We will prioritise drafts that are working group items, drafts that have been actively > discussed on the list and other individual submissions in that order. > > Please have agenda items to us by 2012-07-13 and also note the following deadlines for IETF84: > > 2012-07-09 Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission by 17:00 PT (UTC -7) > 2012-07-16 Internet Draft final submission cut-off by 17:00 PT (UTC -7) > 2012-07-18 (Wednesday): Draft Working Group agendas due by 17:00 PT (UTC -7) > > Best regards, > Bob & Ole > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From dominik.elsbroek@gmail.com Wed Jun 27 07:46:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E39821F877D for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:46:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KLX6MkKkZ1QI for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48D621F8775 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so1069475ggn.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:46:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Hbhg69jlEX/BuBSgvcUjdMmyirIdfEYunxDicbIKG68=; b=X178p5HuOuvj2U2rYwvj92/2omTlrFRJINRWtPDcOpI5eLThtAiNlV8l1xpDlBOLBT qdtWXbKAzYL/WYqZ94Y8bMaFscPEKYw3aCuWigLPB/4qWa9XwuaslCp4k+pwMQ6Vx9N7 UFTNSL+BV4GggaE+ncPcYXZDgnf355pxyfV8vCjd3g/+3fu/3LswpLG5caMz8VMLPRjU 01E9+61E2x6AzuZzJv4goc+NptE2SxNBbpfughTtKryt8iaUqa5LIOVOWwITmOGVFXsC 9EVTxUII4ioZO74mrCljzvozeOS1nXAu4JPDvm6R+Hv2cryN4a3K5kUl00kAfwtjSKgA 68zA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.42.130 with SMTP id o2mr1903794igl.37.1340808368906; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:46:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.193.193 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:46:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:46:08 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 From: Dominik Elsbroek To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:46:10 -0000 I also stongly support to adopt this draft as a WG-document. Cheers, Dominik Elsbroek On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Dave Hart wrote: > I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 as a > 6MAN WG document. > > Dave Hart > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From dominik.elsbroek@gmail.com Wed Jun 27 07:59:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EDEB21F8731 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:59:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lnso4+fUJMX6 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gg0-f172.google.com (mail-gg0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A65721F8724 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ggnc4 with SMTP id c4so1086375ggn.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Hbhg69jlEX/BuBSgvcUjdMmyirIdfEYunxDicbIKG68=; b=QHyfndj5HKfsQV8vmZz1oy66JAUb7TvEMV8huJLSU905i14S+8vGYacdE+AALCG+sX nv9Lyr33HVJTFO+Ds/muGihSZib5jGJeqZPTSbCmZtr8hOSsY5O1QNQmI6iU2Pcyqybg RnxQaT3X+eI74jrtnAj7W5497HBDdv0VR1S2k6lCDk0LiSPFTgFz9/JFQu+xzQRAQ1UI j678OaQc44pjn2ho59wb/nuvXjZo+rKVutB0piweVuItI/yzLGnlk2ZXgcyDVG3eQCvF +FO1UYkkjxNaDiCNyTjyn8RIZbXqZ+pijIgEn1ytpkfDTYmkrjNRDcKvr3kp2Gg7Qeq8 mNJg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.87.227 with SMTP id bb3mr1920556igb.57.1340809150703; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.193.193 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:59:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:59:10 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 From: Dominik Elsbroek To: davehart_gmail_exchange_tee@davehart.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:59:12 -0000 I also stongly support to adopt this draft as a WG-document. Cheers, Dominik Elsbroek On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Dave Hart wrote: > I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 as a > 6MAN WG document. > > Dave Hart > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From dominik.elsbroek@gmail.com Wed Jun 27 09:01:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C71D021F87B6 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:01:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vRxLQHdBwgxp for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4896921F8610 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:01:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1162944yen.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:01:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ywyS3MtHthupDwCjS9LTpc8s4Fg5BdAqpD80M2IAMoE=; b=GCgxhUboQTnJeHCxRAqLvZFiqbP++GgWZ+LJIi1JL8TmOj5AsoXmPBh4p03kkZoJrH USxhdU4V1RkGFd5aEy6QY+BjDNQhBudgPwikXyB0lfZTiOc//KbBGt8A4v0/wcR0tppv UYu2CH+EM0jc58Ked6HcP8eLnf9qYZnLuUJ8Hwv5baV69JCbTCFfP1/1v3QJ+rXULYyV d4PozOXs2C6Y4EHAkrMloEXlwQPrRz7YWaMiuJf1Z8I7qN/9vB+3+uY2t/aBDOGx1XmQ yvT/M6R5VXgz0FT/Ty2MLrNaFgZvz1hJvVB1Du5dacOs3lKYGfR/+G+ZJ5wKw1UjhArG Utcg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.163.5 with SMTP id ye5mr2268868igb.37.1340812905580; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.193.193 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 09:01:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20DB2AE1-338B-4E88-9665-18AD5EF781DD@laposte.net> References: <20DB2AE1-338B-4E88-9665-18AD5EF781DD@laposte.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:01:45 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 From: Dominik Elsbroek To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UultaSBEZXNwculz?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:01:46 -0000 >> I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 as >> a 6MAN WG document. > +1 Kind regards, Dominik Elsbroek From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Wed Jun 27 10:13:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6530321F8653 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KvB5N6PskCl9 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C474E21F8650 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so1713580dac.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=GjylEY0fjK8XTzPNlbkbsi3LXFHqOQ41mZmgaPveEu8=; b=T20xHrlQADC0uuTV+hjMpn+MLLA8RfRNBceW+HcH9asy0431gMVmKoHiHuG8dl+75v +nSf37KieQuHUFvy6vbMwzmcz5U83/HKwiExHEg9/AmJhDCRxpiyJS9uVHChFFfQ2QH7 4Av3ZBKlDLrxj2BBVam1EFaG8Z8AJdwxs7gXFA59ZLRmU5YJOTEYFUVCJrllRnY2NZhy 5itTruvSF4CJAco2b/RSwHK2Een4nYdDIOBDQtRFo8QOV7rbwCuCjavjwHMfCH/Fles6 FwP7ntuFza7ktGWIQbZncdDgk63dxOqS1puoAfE/pQ0AjRTDkzbhKRw40HAepeZCtqa3 kdqA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.225.42 with SMTP id rh10mr66625248pbc.116.1340817185475; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.47.11 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:13:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:13:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Status of subnet-local multicast? From: Kerry Lynn To: 6man 6man Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff243c10c8dce04c3775478 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:44:50 -0700 X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:13:06 -0000 --e89a8ff243c10c8dce04c3775478 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Greetings, RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines "subnet-local (0x03)" multicast scope, but later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as reserved. Can I ask if the later interpretation is the correct one? I ask in the context of e.g. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns where we need a scope greater than link-local in order to span a 6LoWPAN subnet, but less than site-local in order to reserve the property "Each interface belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope." for future site-local protocols that might include the 6LoWPAN router port. Should I select admin-local scope, or is subnet-local scope available for use? Thanks, -K- --e89a8ff243c10c8dce04c3775478 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Greetings,

RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines "subnet-loc= al (0x03)" multicast scope, but
later RFC 4291 section 2.7 d= efines this multicast scope value as reserved.
Can I ask if the l= ater interpretation is the correct one?

where we need a scope greater than l= ink-local in order to span a 6LoWPAN
subnet, but less than site-local in order to reserve the property &quo= t;Each interface
belongs to exactly one zone of each possible sco= pe." for future site-local
protocols that might include the = 6LoWPAN router port.

Should I select admin-local scope, or is subnet-local s= cope available for use?

Thanks, -K-
--e89a8ff243c10c8dce04c3775478-- From stig@venaas.com Wed Jun 27 10:53:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D8C21F861A for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:53:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hfVgPIkJkDLs for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:53:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ufisa.uninett.no (ufisa.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:1:2:158:38:152:126]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457C321F860E for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:53:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.33.12.93] (128-107-239-233.cisco.com [128.107.239.233]) by ufisa.uninett.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCE6F7FE2 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:53:02 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4FEB487C.4060607@venaas.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:53:00 -0700 From: Stig Venaas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Status of subnet-local multicast? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:53:05 -0000 On 6/27/2012 10:13 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote: > Greetings, > > RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines "subnet-local (0x03)" multicast scope, but > later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as reserved. > Can I ask if the later interpretation is the correct one? > > I ask in the context of e.g. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns > where we need a scope greater than link-local in order to span a 6LoWPAN > subnet, but less than site-local in order to reserve the property "Each > interface > belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope." for future site-local > protocols that might include the 6LoWPAN router port. > > Should I select admin-local scope, or is subnet-local scope available > for use? I've always been a bit curious why it got marked as reserved. It was (unassigned) in RFC 2373, but reserved in RFC 3513. I don't remember any discussion on this. It seems 4 admin-local would be appropriate then. Unless perhaps if 3 is somehow reserved to allow for maybe future use like this... Stig > > Thanks, -K- > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > From arturo.servin@gmail.com Wed Jun 27 11:11:11 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5B4611E8115 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZXmjbHIIjfSz for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD9811E810B for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1301098yen.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=UBpWui1pbY44xGCJY5mBcFguO7QDTavKDbLxPuw3KE4=; b=s3FptANZkOAON/L6LzXU6iYk6T8y3E4FML9xe75Dq0+0BxPPi7ye9qo8xU+NwmQsLo AfiDtS6saeU8LUDU1EvHXXKNN6LGj2wqSUpTR5M5vz3KekGsttY68q7lwiIEyk8QbcnQ eOKSt1jqetXjzT+doz+KSH9OjlhTEWrg8VKD6ATyaHTBWXQbF3v3HmN5TLyikWjHE27K R7pnPVOAB4+e8p4SVE93bhkNYJ9fr+YEXXKHEckI4kt7uMM1Gn0rYIXFv1tb+Tn+V/NY KWHu+PcOlT51QnHe4mNa/ZchsAqP0B8mkYPVgOzStj1jR5LvNPuQlbZlsJZSQPGVABEp faqA== Received: by 10.236.176.232 with SMTP id b68mr24101707yhm.102.1340820665986; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:13c7:7001:5128:8d93:9bfd:fce9:dbb3? ([2001:13c7:7001:5128:8d93:9bfd:fce9:dbb3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m16sm12804738anl.5.2012.06.27.11.11.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Arturo Servin In-Reply-To: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:11:00 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9CC47EAD-DB3C-480B-B3DD-C793E03FDCE5@gmail.com> References: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:11:12 -0000 Support. /as On 13 Jun 2012, at 09:32, Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > All, > This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting >=20 > Title : Security Implications of the Use of IPv6 Extension = Headers with IPv6 > Neighbor Discovery > Author(s) : F. Gont > Filename : draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 > Pages : 13 > Date : 2012-06-13 >=20 > as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or > against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or > to the chairs. This call will end June 27, 2012. >=20 > Regards, > Ole & Bob > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From vishwas.ietf@gmail.com Wed Jun 27 11:11:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A79D511E8113 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.622 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aILyye4e9Cxt for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C1511E8119 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so2051545obb.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hoh5/HKQ7XwnbH6z7EzWgha3vI8NR/5+QHNbYcvWINc=; b=Dv8XwKr7fBJqnO14jHrEQ9Cv1qR94jcnR+cG07RY3eHiVqXQF9D2+pIkUPv1PNmJBc SmqHQsjNU+xeahPLI6iyS/t9B+3w6hkFvH+/3NKUQt1z1xwX1OZ6z6RB0clrkRC0VCXn s3EVG+WkmBK5Fz/OcGA5KJ4EWHolH88dixi+3qPYe1doWDg1BMKp1r8D9bBbAjvWdaaB LtfNf7Cuk6n+T/z5aS37OqehYAgaugM/KRfJP/Re1DZ0Ul9DkMDlP3YThB3M1H1GWKKE L3LGEvmWaVB5qPSs2uYWoYZSWNbV05eNNaub34z4uzvP7LIn2jno7ROCC74FUi87AvKW GjEg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.43.67 with SMTP id u3mr6420466obl.5.1340820678793; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.143.2 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20DB2AE1-338B-4E88-9665-18AD5EF781DD@laposte.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:11:18 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 From: Vishwas Manral To: Dominik Elsbroek Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044795a9445a3804c3782476 Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:11:29 -0000 --f46d044795a9445a3804c3782476 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +1 too. -Vishwas On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Dominik Elsbroek < dominik.elsbroek@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 as > >> a 6MAN WG document. > > > > +1 > > Kind regards, > Dominik Elsbroek > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > --f46d044795a9445a3804c3782476 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 +1 too.

-Vishwas

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Dominik Elsbroek <dominik.elsbroek@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 as
>> a 6MAN WG document.
>

+1

Kind regards,
Dominik Elsbroek
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--f46d044795a9445a3804c3782476-- From kerlyn2001@gmail.com Wed Jun 27 11:47:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CB621F872D for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BBOnlTSrBf+w for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB9C21F85C5 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by dacx6 with SMTP id x6so1817760dac.31 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=aohiJYXRRXGeElU98p2G3AJ7gfqKZ4up9tI/yAnUCaU=; b=UOYWiA3dWiLwHX/o+7jP2kdoAi5tjQzgEcKyUCAEHjfDxL6Lr5J7Pi3JkBSrQ/kdA9 +whsps5GpRNhDcIShQGlhsz/k83SwClKQqo2q1iqF22kzuGzBX2J6RudidhpMLj7QAV7 J8XgpgDpswNJ8qBySxHOqOMw6zvXmgPghlYidtthBV1DgZ4j8m1TShOTOURfStRjb6kf lTSC01p8vCoqMAnnVtpldM1UJLKWo5Hq47KpZBkjwV2/5lKeuo+cgd+msgprf7RE+m0e fGqEBTM6n9XXgzfBm1xmTpw/gfph76pIapF+BqwxgaEkCzpN5H6Z4jjaD8/koMdqdTct UPhQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.241.228 with SMTP id wl4mr65990655pbc.51.1340822830560; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kerlyn2001@gmail.com Received: by 10.142.47.11 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:47:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FEB487C.4060607@venaas.com> References: <4FEB487C.4060607@venaas.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:47:10 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: cDJSet7b3SsReo2HYq9kWB5TvXA Message-ID: Subject: Re: Status of subnet-local multicast? From: Kerry Lynn To: Stig Venaas Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3395a785b5aa04c378a4b9 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:47:14 -0000 --047d7b3395a785b5aa04c378a4b9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > On 6/27/2012 10:13 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines "subnet-local (0x03)" multicast scope, but >> later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as reserved. >> Can I ask if the later interpretation is the correct one? >> >> I ask in the context of e.g. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns >> where we need a scope greater than link-local in order to span a 6LoWPAN >> subnet, but less than site-local in order to reserve the property "Each >> interface >> belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope." for future site-local >> protocols that might include the 6LoWPAN router port. >> >> Should I select admin-local scope, or is subnet-local scope available >> for use? >> > > I've always been a bit curious why it got marked as reserved. It was > (unassigned) in RFC 2373, but reserved in RFC 3513. I don't remember > any discussion on this. > > It seems 4 admin-local would be appropriate then. Unless perhaps if 3 > is somehow reserved to allow for maybe future use like this... > > Perhaps it was originally discussed as an analog to IPv4 subnet broadcast, but that usage was later thought unnecessary. Hopefully an IPv6 historian will chime in... Thanks, -K- Stig > > >> Thanks, -K- >> >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**-------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ipv6 >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**-------- >> >> > > ------------------------------**------------------------------**-------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ipv6 > ------------------------------**------------------------------**-------- > --047d7b3395a785b5aa04c378a4b9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2012 10:13 AM, Kerry Lynn w= rote:
Greetings,

RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines "subnet-local (0x03)" multicast scop= e, but
later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as reserved.<= br> Can I ask if the later interpretation is the correct one?

I ask in the context of e.g.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns<= /a>
where we need a scope greater than link-local in order to span a 6LoWPAN subnet, but less than site-local in order to reserve the property "Eac= h
interface
belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope." for future site-l= ocal
protocols that might include the 6LoWPAN router port.

Should I select admin-local scope, or is subnet-local scope available
for use?

I've always been a bit curious why it got marked as reserved. It was (unassigned) in RFC 2373, but reserved in RFC 3513. I don't remember any discussion on this.

It seems 4 admin-local would be appropriate then. Unless perhaps if 3
is somehow reserved to allow for maybe future use like this...


Stig


Thanks, -K-


-------------------------------------------------------------= -------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
-------------------------------------------------------------= -------



-------------------------------------------------------------= -------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
-------------------------------------------------------------= -------

--047d7b3395a785b5aa04c378a4b9-- From rdroms.ietf@gmail.com Wed Jun 27 13:11:57 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5306F21F865C for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:11:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R7k9r8HxR-I4 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f170.google.com (mail-qc0-f170.google.com [209.85.216.170]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E92C21F864A for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:11:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcmt36 with SMTP id t36so801263qcm.15 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:11:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=e1N1K+HQmss/22qy14x75L60zRWaonH2uSLl4ofONUY=; b=Vy3yxIATUUIALKZaPc4yVqM3HJ2Ez8Ab+gGX41oMRtb5SzCQdafizYSjvo2USJOFMN 5oz1hfVwu5rQDRJGoPBrWRllrTLO+8OO6B2fbzu9uyjj48cZK2114WPJxWxsGv60nLKJ pIR3UbLpp0atZc+Y7kldGG26pGH6ebbNmz8hPcQ/rUgpcRiRTKhWOT04tHc5UGJ3ydCY NEDgtx8xfpwWCIcZ0oBjLbtSccmZAEaV0BeaIgOj0o8cUfUlvFzqFoHFqS7cYYh1nLT5 KbioBO29xBgmDFSFslOw/k/ARRZVcX5q3IB/S9GtRrzr9EVQaTtEQ3RNyFZ5tDvTQi4y mw0w== Received: by 10.224.193.9 with SMTP id ds9mr6685542qab.75.1340827915733; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:11:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from che-vpn-cluster-2-314.cisco.com (198-135-0-233.cisco.com. [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 9sm24438007qac.9.2012.06.27.13.11.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Status of subnet-local multicast? Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Ralph Droms In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:11:52 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <816EB581-DB31-4092-A8FB-AFC08809CA50@gmail.com> References: <4FEB487C.4060607@venaas.com> To: Kerry Lynn , Stig Venaas X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org WG Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:11:57 -0000 Dave Thaler and I are exchanging e-mail about this very topic. According to Dave, scope 3 was assigned for subnet-scoped multicast, to = accommodate multi-link subnets. Then the IPng WG decided multi-link = subnets is a bad idea and Dave wrote RFC 4903. One of the side-effects = was to relabel scope 3 as 'reserved'. Now, however, me have multi-link subnets in the 6lowpan/RPL = architecture, picked up by ZigBee IP. Might be time to relabel scope 3 = back to subnet-scope. - Ralph On Jun 27, 2012, at 2:47 PM 6/27/12, Kerry Lynn wrote: > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Stig Venaas wrote: > On 6/27/2012 10:13 AM, Kerry Lynn wrote: > Greetings, >=20 > RFC 3484 section 3.1 defines "subnet-local (0x03)" multicast scope, = but > later RFC 4291 section 2.7 defines this multicast scope value as = reserved. > Can I ask if the later interpretation is the correct one? >=20 > I ask in the context of e.g. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lynn-homenet-site-mdns > where we need a scope greater than link-local in order to span a = 6LoWPAN > subnet, but less than site-local in order to reserve the property = "Each > interface > belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope." for future = site-local > protocols that might include the 6LoWPAN router port. >=20 > Should I select admin-local scope, or is subnet-local scope available > for use? >=20 > I've always been a bit curious why it got marked as reserved. It was > (unassigned) in RFC 2373, but reserved in RFC 3513. I don't remember > any discussion on this. >=20 > It seems 4 admin-local would be appropriate then. Unless perhaps if 3 > is somehow reserved to allow for maybe future use like this... >=20 > Perhaps it was originally discussed as an analog to IPv4 subnet = broadcast, > but that usage was later thought unnecessary. Hopefully an IPv6 = historian > will chime in... >=20 > Thanks, -K- >=20 > Stig >=20 >=20 > Thanks, -K- >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Wed Jun 27 13:35:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4532021F86D8 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:35:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ad4ElLDSSWL9 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0A121F86D0 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q5RKZ2cJ011501; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:35:03 -0500 Received: from [142.133.112.108] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:34:59 -0400 Message-ID: <4FEB6E72.9010601@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 16:34:58 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org" , "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:35:06 -0000 Hi Chairs, On 06/13/2012 08:29 AM, Ole Trĝan wrote: > All, > This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting > > Title : Security and Interoperability Implications of Oversized IPv6 Header > Chains > Author(s) : F. Gont, V. Manral > Filename : draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 > Pages : 12 > Date : 2012-06-13 > > as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or > against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or > to the chairs. This call will end June 27, 2012. I read through the draft and I am generally supportive of the sentiment behind the draft. But the draft itself is not at all clear on what constitutes a "entire IPv6 header chain". Without this, I think the draft in its current form is not actionable. I would like a crisper definition of what exactly is the expected behavior on sending, receiving and intermediate nodes Thanks Suresh From fgont@si6networks.com Thu Jun 28 05:00:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5674A21F85C0 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:00:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.53 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.53 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p2xuKiCeZD4Q for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:00:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08BD721F85AC for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 05:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lst-amand-152-31-6-27.w193-253.abo.wanadoo.fr ([193.253.193.27] helo=[192.168.101.214]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SkDOG-0006nf-Ha; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:00:08 +0200 Message-ID: <4FEBC589.2020900@si6networks.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:46:33 +0200 From: Fernando Gont Organization: SI6 Networks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suresh Krishnan Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 References: <4FEB6E72.9010601@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4FEB6E72.9010601@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org" , "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:00:23 -0000 On 06/27/2012 10:34 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > > I read through the draft and I am generally supportive of the sentiment > behind the draft. But the draft itself is not at all clear on what > constitutes a "entire IPv6 header chain". Without this, I think the > draft in its current form is not actionable. I simply disagree. While I have no objection with including "a crisper definition of what 'entire IPv6 header chain'", I think claiming that "the draft in current for is not actionable" is taking it way too far. For instance, a bunch of people clearly understood what the document is talking about -- with the entire IPv6 header chain being all headers from the fixed IPv6 header chain, till the upper layer protocol (TCP, UDP, etc. -- assuming there's one of those), including any extension headers. > I would like a crisper > definition of what exactly is the expected behavior on sending, > receiving and intermediate nodes Essentially, what is important is the sending behaviour: You must include the entire IPv6 header chain in the first fragment. Intermediate nodes may simply forward non-compliant packets, but may also decide to drop them -- ditto for end nodes. (We might want to require *end-nodes* to drop them.. However, it wouldn't make sense to require intermediate nodes to drop such packets, since it would implicitly require them to process the entire IPv6 header chain). Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Thu Jun 28 07:04:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04B9021F859A for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:04:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.43 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.43 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n9JeqxMIq8lB for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEFB21F8539 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:04:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q5SE4NAj028893; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 09:04:25 -0500 Received: from [142.133.112.108] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:04:22 -0400 Message-ID: <4FEC6466.2040305@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:04:22 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 References: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> In-Reply-To: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org" , "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:04:28 -0000 Hi Chairs, On 06/13/2012 08:32 AM, Ole Trĝan wrote: > All, > This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting > > Title : Security Implications of the Use of IPv6 Extension Headers with IPv6 > Neighbor Discovery > Author(s) : F. Gont > Filename : draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 > Pages : 13 > Date : 2012-06-13 > > as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or > against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or > to the chairs. This call will end June 27, 2012. I support adoption of this draft. Thanks Suresh From vishwas.ietf@gmail.com Thu Jun 28 07:42:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75CEB21F8592 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:42:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.616 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.616 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dvT-yv+F73cD for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8817B21F858D for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so3608460obb.31 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:42:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=PlQyXpmS/o6AhgQPPkYX8GOpa+YtNp7fXqic1qRMViM=; b=uW5fJdUx9lnnhsbpGwdoeP97aqc3ekuRPgryaWfgRQh9jFU3MDKTm2KYyvwGBxv3NK pIDXa+DOHfZKlUWg/OnEaxiYdQmiEEIFatKJfZ9VOiu8dKNsX0a8NS2gyz0kmc9pHiII 2UtZ5F//mlek4T/j6PgZjIpsQ7Pr93DZQ2lTUSsue56Gp3Uc3k4UK34TxiX/7WJfI4P4 FytRb589keZw5ELLsEDTuHPiIlgxjdBXiJNrRQnP0oXHgmO/RPQWAzbzDwHWu/HH8bGM MdBikMYCk2iTEN2Fj+GCgu0mexn2jjHF1jKoZlrZpgdECmOEb9s/QzRTaF/zjkoe53sT 59Yw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.43.67 with SMTP id u3mr2834634obl.5.1340894530939; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.143.2 with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:42:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 07:42:10 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 From: Vishwas Manral To: Dominik Elsbroek Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d044795a932ad2104c38956ef Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:42:14 -0000 --f46d044795a932ad2104c38956ef Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 +1 -Vishwas On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Dominik Elsbroek < dominik.elsbroek@gmail.com> wrote: > I also stongly support to adopt this draft as a WG-document. > > Cheers, > Dominik Elsbroek > > > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Dave Hart wrote: > > I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 as a > > 6MAN WG document. > > > > Dave Hart > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > ipv6@ietf.org > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > --f46d044795a932ad2104c38956ef Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 +1

-Vishwas

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Dominik Elsbroek <dominik.elsbroek@gmail.com> wrote:
I also stongly support to adopt this draft as a WG-document.

Cheers,
Dominik Elsbroek



On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Dave Hart <davehart@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am in favor of adopting draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 as a
> 6MAN WG document.
>
> Dave Hart
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--f46d044795a932ad2104c38956ef-- From bob.hinden@gmail.com Thu Jun 28 12:47:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B83D11E8087 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:47:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tr3Adbly0n9L for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f44.google.com (mail-qa0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B154511E8085 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qadz3 with SMTP id z3so242732qad.10 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:47:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=jWumPudDzPZV6PJ1livU0pcbBdTFhD+RIAPtP8fPIwo=; b=K/IfSD68e8ECmraI1A6y4eeH1fkFXugx3PrZnoM/zOiOQq1cKbU225YFBUg4v2aWjz VJf/eCmRJ+RtNe0AT0QVIjvXVXrlmb08jweWhhfrYss6NaLXUGAfKyKj7LQjuLMawR1Z OGEC9Y8X64jC+5cwXCYuxSHRPxA7P+7jLlDqbc5U2OLQgkEsEgsBtN/kp+R+HbstHHOC SLYbhd+vauhK8JHVjvABBLleY2TakiZt1yEp1Kp0Dol83hA3/UHIEMqBnuMlCAwSSCtI v5P63lQymPE1u2nVqdebpfEzY/OXfJF0zlU1HPuVGvwy+jFCyVMIS2rK7wO2WfbuPTO4 Qn9A== Received: by 10.224.71.15 with SMTP id f15mr5343377qaj.40.1340912844000; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:47:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.224.217] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gv1sm5022306qab.8.2012.06.28.12.47.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:47:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Conclusion of 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Bob Hinden In-Reply-To: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:47:20 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <596B045A-D431-43CD-A2D9-5F92048A7E5D@gmail.com> References: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org, Bob Hinden X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:47:25 -0000 All, Based on the feedback received, the 6man chairs believe there is = consensus to adopt draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 as a 6MAN = working group document. The author should submit the next revision as an 6MAN document. =20 Regards, Bob Hinden and Ole Troan On Jun 13, 2012, at 5:32 AM, Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > All, > This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting >=20 > Title : Security Implications of the Use of IPv6 Extension = Headers with IPv6 > Neighbor Discovery > Author(s) : F. Gont > Filename : draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 > Pages : 13 > Date : 2012-06-13 >=20 > as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or > against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or > to the chairs. This call will end June 27, 2012. >=20 > Regards, > Ole & Bob > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- From bob.hinden@gmail.com Thu Jun 28 12:49:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D945611E8095 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:49:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iNh2ldvZUHBH for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 430DF11E8072 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qcac10 with SMTP id c10so325607qca.31 for ; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:49:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=pirxmO8IcvHar0gUIUfd2qMXmSI0swhMd9zyy3lzPOg=; b=PiBarVWZM8WS5NgBxspFie+ig1zy7tjTbLBYLs9PS4q33XxMTsF87gA7NT3/EIWyZG Pxdl4+CnyC0tW+91BdTWWuSmx4bw/0pFuTNW/QxyI5nqsXLZX4QgxsWxHt6d3KuOHH/0 Ut1KvRr8ZLm6mj72GWgCgq/ZkB8aqibTQ0Dnao91O/1UdnJ2kgl8+ZqPKRcstLdCCzb4 aXEh3pstYdrLIarCz6nMibWPyo/Kaat6n95OOXCNJLqHqCoGfyfF2Tg0AWtb0ivCSoOW PC5yoslTr/MqkMir07hjasHEilQsEpzn8P810QiYR6TZXn6XzJWzppCF0EkRlPkOCtlX 3vEw== Received: by 10.224.138.147 with SMTP id a19mr5303083qau.84.1340912963704; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.224.217] ([209.97.127.34]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id he6sm5028414qab.13.2012.06.28.12.49.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:49:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Conclusion of 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Bob Hinden In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 12:49:19 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2860BA2A-3DE7-425F-9B0C-0CF125D5F594@gmail.com> References: To: "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org, Bob Hinden X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:49:25 -0000 All, Based on the feedback received, the 6man chairs believe there is = consensus to adopt draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 as a 6MAN = working group document. The authors should submit the next revision as an 6MAN document. =20 Regards, Bob Hinden and Ole Troan On Jun 13, 2012, at 5:29 AM, Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > All, > This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting >=20 > Title : Security and Interoperability Implications of = Oversized IPv6 Header > Chains > Author(s) : F. Gont, V. Manral > Filename : draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 > Pages : 12 > Date : 2012-06-13 >=20 > as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or > against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or > to the chairs. This call will end June 27, 2012. >=20 > Regards, > Ole & Bob >=20 >=20 From fernando.gont.netbook.win@gmail.com Fri Jun 29 03:57:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA3CD21F8639 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:57:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.953 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.953 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.646, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k5KvIOS-ZTsk for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71F421F8636 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:57:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so1520990eaa.31 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:57:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DgYGP2DhI8DGzcnk3OdjrpHojycr4QNa8vkz2nVticg=; b=Z2U5JghtSySPROWjfa9s+WMc8qtks477M+JU55roJFf6OoeFu5A8TZ+OYhcHlk4HyI lBNndHo0JO6FNVXttAW7YbuVZQL/0T5wZ+QPi2Y1NMBudgfha7lXMU+ZcZcIGLRVibML ayDdFZ86Iu4fqwJgAWLS5VQz8wyzgsiEcKJKvDzO3q2Emul9cBpCGyrfd6J35GcsvhO6 x46AGhrZY8lAEWD9zyuJPpawhkvE951WUKUIdm21cWz13gO30ld3r6TgPLFlkz0U+6Nx tHEDMk/Y5q5ErV23NH9jnF0/0pWQkNOk2NSQhNFMqcISvkw9mXLblPFfXqcqY4Xgv2n1 kpVg== Received: by 10.14.98.202 with SMTP id v50mr498236eef.80.1340967460833; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:57:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:5c0:1400:a::79f? ([2001:5c0:1400:a::79f]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e48sm6668302eea.12.2012.06.29.03.57.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Fernando Gont Message-ID: <4FED8A20.8000106@gont.com.ar> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 12:57:36 +0200 From: Fernando Gont User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Hinden Subject: Re: Conclusion of 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 References: <093BCFDB-4A0D-4516-A2A1-708CADE5A1D4@employees.org> <596B045A-D431-43CD-A2D9-5F92048A7E5D@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <596B045A-D431-43CD-A2D9-5F92048A7E5D@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers@tools.ietf.org, "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:57:43 -0000 Hi, Bob, Thanks so much for your timely e-mail. BTW, any take on the result of the other poll (draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain)? (mine is that it received similar support... but ymmv) Thanks! Best regards, Fernando On 06/28/2012 09:47 PM, Bob Hinden wrote: > All, > > Based on the feedback received, the 6man chairs believe there is consensus to adopt draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 as a 6MAN working group document. > > The author should submit the next revision as an 6MAN document. > > Regards, > Bob Hinden and Ole Troan > > > On Jun 13, 2012, at 5:32 AM, Ole Trĝan wrote: > >> All, >> This starts a 2-week consensus call on adopting >> >> Title : Security Implications of the Use of IPv6 Extension Headers with IPv6 >> Neighbor Discovery >> Author(s) : F. Gont >> Filename : draft-gont-6man-nd-extension-headers-03 >> Pages : 13 >> Date : 2012-06-13 >> >> as a 6MAN WG document. Please state your opinion (either for or >> against) on making this draft a WG draft either on the mailing list or >> to the chairs. This call will end June 27, 2012. >> >> Regards, >> Ole & Bob >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list >> ipv6@ietf.org >> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jun 29 08:01:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B853221F8750; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:01:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.455 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.455 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.144, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UVv6ZPohFm5s; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9239821F8697; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:01:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120629150102.7069.7703.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:01:02 -0700 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 15:01:06 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IET= F. Title : Security Implications of the Use of IPv6 Extension Heade= rs with IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Author(s) : Fernando Gont Filename : draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-00.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-06-29 Abstract: This document analyzes the security implications of using IPv6 Extension Headers with Neighbor Discovery (ND) messages. It updates RFC 4861 such that use of the IPv6 Fragmentation Header is forbidden in all Neighbor Discovery messages, thus allowing for simple and effective counter-measures for Neighbor Discovery attacks. Finally, it discusses the security implications of using IPv6 fragmentation with SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND), and provides advice such that the aforementioned security implications are mitigated. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-nd-extension-headers-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri Jun 29 13:26:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0D7511E8095; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.478 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.478 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.121, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WwCU4DvwkBv6; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2C411E8083; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-00.txt X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21p1 Message-ID: <20120629202644.28011.19919.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:26:44 -0700 Cc: ipv6@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:26:46 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IET= F. Title : Security and Interoperability Implications of Oversized = IPv6 Header Chains Author(s) : Fernando Gont Vishwas Manral Filename : draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-00.txt Pages : 12 Date : 2012-06-29 Abstract: The IPv6 specification allows IPv6 header chains of an arbitrary size. The specification also allows options which can in turn extend each of the headers. In those scenarios in which the IPv6 header chain or options are unusually long and packets are fragmented, or scenarios in which the fragment size is very small, the first fragment of a packet may fail to include the entire IPv6 header chain. This document discusses the interoperability and security problems of such traffic, and updates RFC 2460 such that the first fragment of a packet is required to contain the entire IPv6 header chain. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-oversized-header-chain-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Fri Jun 29 17:48:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7489211E80A0 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:48:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.569 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rBlWNA-EyiBH for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:48:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9F5711E808D for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q5U0mMFs026019; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:48:23 -0500 Received: from [142.133.112.108] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.0; Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:48:16 -0400 Message-ID: <4FEE4CD0.2060002@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 20:48:16 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fernando Gont Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 References: <4FEB6E72.9010601@ericsson.com> <4FEBC589.2020900@si6networks.com> In-Reply-To: <4FEBC589.2020900@si6networks.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org" , "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:48:26 -0000 Hi Fernando, On 06/27/2012 10:46 PM, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 06/27/2012 10:34 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >> >> I read through the draft and I am generally supportive of the sentiment >> behind the draft. But the draft itself is not at all clear on what >> constitutes a "entire IPv6 header chain". Without this, I think the >> draft in its current form is not actionable. > > I simply disagree. While I have no objection with including "a crisper > definition of what 'entire IPv6 header chain'", I think claiming that > "the draft in current for is not actionable" is taking it way too far. > For instance, a bunch of people clearly understood what the document is > talking about -- with the entire IPv6 header chain being all headers > from the fixed IPv6 header chain, till the upper layer protocol (TCP, > UDP, etc. -- assuming there's one of those), including any extension > headers. This description works for me. Just put it in the draft and we are all set. > > > >> I would like a crisper >> definition of what exactly is the expected behavior on sending, >> receiving and intermediate nodes > > Essentially, what is important is the sending behaviour: You must > include the entire IPv6 header chain in the first fragment. Intermediate > nodes may simply forward non-compliant packets, but may also decide to > drop them -- ditto for end nodes. I asked because there is a legitimate problem that you raise in Section 4 "However, if the first fragment fails to include the entire IPv6 header chain, they may have no option other than "blindly" allowing or blocking the corresponding fragment. If they blindly allow the packet, then the firewall can be easily circumvented by intentionally sending fragmented packets that fail to include the entire IPv6 header chain in the first fragment." but the draft does nothing to mitigate this issue. Thanks Suresh From fgont@si6networks.com Sat Jun 30 06:08:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1428821F8648 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 06:08:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.065 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.535, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZVFpbbu9NBYV for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 06:08:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web01.jbserver.net (web01.jbserver.net [IPv6:2a00:d10:2000:e::3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD5CB21F84CD for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 06:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lst-amand-152-31-6-27.w193-253.abo.wanadoo.fr ([193.253.193.27] helo=[192.168.101.212]) by web01.jbserver.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SkxPc-0005Sk-1O; Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:08:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4FEEFA4D.7010401@si6networks.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 15:08:29 +0200 From: Fernando Gont Organization: SI6 Networks User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suresh Krishnan Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Call for adoption draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain-02 References: <4FEB6E72.9010601@ericsson.com> <4FEBC589.2020900@si6networks.com> <4FEE4CD0.2060002@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4FEE4CD0.2060002@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-gont-6man-oversized-header-chain@tools.ietf.org" , "ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List" X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 13:08:42 -0000 Hi, Suresh, Thanks so much for yur feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line... On 06/30/2012 02:48 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >> I simply disagree. While I have no objection with including "a crisper >> definition of what 'entire IPv6 header chain'", I think claiming that >> "the draft in current for is not actionable" is taking it way too far. >> For instance, a bunch of people clearly understood what the document is >> talking about -- with the entire IPv6 header chain being all headers >> from the fixed IPv6 header chain, till the upper layer protocol (TCP, >> UDP, etc. -- assuming there's one of those), including any extension >> headers. > > This description works for me. Just put it in the draft and we are all set. Ok, great! >> Essentially, what is important is the sending behaviour: You must >> include the entire IPv6 header chain in the first fragment. Intermediate >> nodes may simply forward non-compliant packets, but may also decide to >> drop them -- ditto for end nodes. > > I asked because there is a legitimate problem that you raise in Section 4 > > "However, if the first > fragment fails to include the entire IPv6 header chain, they may have > no option other than "blindly" allowing or blocking the corresponding > fragment. If they blindly allow the packet, then the firewall can be > easily circumvented by intentionally sending fragmented packets that > fail to include the entire IPv6 header chain in the first fragment." > > but the draft does nothing to mitigate this issue. Well, the problem *was* that at least in theory such packets could exist in practice. Now that we'll ban those packets, then a middle-box is free to drop first-fragments that fail to include the entire IPv6 header chain, since those packets are illegitimate in the first place (i.e., problem solved!). (Note: such packets have not been found in real networks, and middle-boxes area already dropping them -- hence we're aligning the specs with the real-world). Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492