From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Tue May 8 02:18:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3304421F85B1 for ; Tue, 8 May 2012 02:18:04 -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 XOLMEiBJzm8r for ; Tue, 8 May 2012 02:18:02 -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 F24C221F8592 for ; Tue, 8 May 2012 02:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so575880eek.31 for ; Tue, 08 May 2012 02:18:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=jILGXn6YQool3M8ALlZH/V1RUdsI7a92QChQd2Kifzk=; b=eA2gO7T0/pZLoL0ir8LNLowEvvXYTtS1Yxuwzmo5nJN54mmPRdyKBgzya7yeuzP357 tgCU+qSLOQPq2kTOoEGpGBZ2y8u6Hh7+f99GE+rHItvulADwxpzVP5Djf2Bgu8NHcLiR OkRMq0Uy2+v/T5mvXbbrnMjD6KwDpZKPrSzXXyImY/DAfpPkj9lJkEHqqUrCCpMFZCsh Nyn0bK5ozSIvDC9JQ1wGJo0OOYJ43jpjsgpJ8vvsckZ78EYfYQZsKGg3VAV5VOZqAlcg n1LVAE1mRBwY5nGw8cotRrc6XO6b1tgGuyVTEWUbQChQvYGAO05+ZozuWlzEihq1nzk1 bWFw== Received: by 10.14.39.137 with SMTP id d9mr3276470eeb.57.1336468681156; Tue, 08 May 2012 02:18:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.232.110.88] (c088.al.cl.cam.ac.uk. [128.232.110.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n52sm1965520eeh.9.2012.05.08.02.17.58 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 08 May 2012 02:17:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FA8E4BB.7030000@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 10:17:47 +0100 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mif@ietf.org References: <20120424215831.16501.93660.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120424215831.16501.93660.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-00.txt X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 09:18:04 -0000 Main comment: I would like to see some discussion (not standardisation) of the fact that the proposed new option (not to mention RIO) will need a central site-wide configuration mechanism. Otherwise the document will give the false impression that it solves the whole problem. As we know from the discussion of the DHCP solution, it doesn't. Minor comments: > 1. Introduction > > IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration > protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with > various parameters [RFC4861], [RFC4862]. I think RFC 4191 should also be listed here. In fact I would extend the sentence slightly: IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with various parameters related to addressing and routing [RFC4861], [RFC4862], [RFC4191]. And the next sentence: > ...DNS Recursive Server > Addresses and Domain Name Search Lists are example parameters that > can be configured using router advertisements [RFC6106]. Please s/example/additional/. As far as I know, RFC 6106 is the only extension to RA that is not related to addressing and routing, and many people objected even to that small extension. > 5. Next Hop Address option ... > Length: The length of the option (including the type and length > fields) in units of 8 octets. For example, the length for an IPv6 > address is 3. Why "for example"?? This is an IPv6 spec. The length is 3, period. Regards Brian Carpenter From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Wed May 16 09:33:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1429921F863B for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, 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 XLDpD59GEJmt for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:03 -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 7B23D21F8636 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so1037567yen.31 for ; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:03 -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:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f8yHymr8xpQ2ToUwGN/q+nLKXMDhaa1YieIntARWD7M=; b=0gQl9L8fIWL8ipoJ3PijqNlK3bcvCRxmlUjGRNiET413oyO+hMOFxevhLiDgH4spJy w7/vH86BBHPZgq36QbLpIJXn4eGr8WgWwGy51RHIINs5eBOtOFMv3CHjaC+oXInJ/331 higeD4H8TKkRc9HV42Z4o8tkr2jZirP8+M3cEoX5zytGbw3vaAeXjOcxImgoYiLYzGNZ /grAqh86nV3YQP+NWpf9PQNZO7hckd0/49HWZarWM+PwzJQek2xJFh5S9oCfl3+RlWIx ZIvHCh73gs4i05OYxHeNnQzMEQkkyn2TQmmEkP7/NbyEeu1hObXqXcX5UKT41lVAlC/b oE8A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.40.193 with SMTP id z1mr2943381igk.0.1337185981450; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.78.10 with HTTP; Wed, 16 May 2012 09:33:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4FA8E4BB.7030000@gmail.com> References: <20120424215831.16501.93660.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FA8E4BB.7030000@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 11:33:01 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Brian E Carpenter Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-00.txt X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:33:04 -0000 Hi Brian, Thank you for your comments. My replies are inline. Behcet On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Main comment: > > I would like to see some discussion (not standardisation) of the > fact that the proposed new option (not to mention RIO) will need > a central site-wide configuration mechanism. Otherwise the document > will give the false impression that it solves the whole problem. > As we know from the discussion of the DHCP solution, it doesn't. > Sure. I will. Do you mind offering some text? > Minor comments: > >> 1. =A0Introduction >> >> =A0 =A0IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfigurat= ion >> =A0 =A0protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with >> =A0 =A0various parameters [RFC4861], [RFC4862]. > > I think RFC 4191 should also be listed here. In fact I would extend the > sentence slightly: > > =A0 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration > =A0 protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with > =A0 various parameters related to addressing and routing [RFC4861], > =A0 [RFC4862], [RFC4191]. OK > > And the next sentence: > >> =A0 =A0...DNS Recursive Server >> =A0 =A0Addresses and Domain Name Search Lists are example parameters tha= t >> =A0 =A0can be configured using router advertisements [RFC6106]. > > Please s/example/additional/. As far as I know, RFC 6106 is the only > extension to RA that is not related to addressing and routing, and > many people objected even to that small extension. > I agree with this observation. For some time, it has not been possible to have any extensions on RA options. >> 5. =A0Next Hop Address option > ... >> =A0 =A0Length: The length of the option (including the type and length >> =A0 =A0fields) in units of 8 octets. =A0For example, the length for an I= Pv6 >> =A0 =A0address is 3. > > Why "for example"?? This is an IPv6 spec. The length is 3, period. > OK > Regards > =A0 Brian Carpenter > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif From zehn.cao@gmail.com Fri May 18 00:56:10 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CE7C21F86B7 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:10 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 jJMrKRWXX5Mw for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C575E21F8674 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so3108846yhq.31 for ; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:09 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Zifx2p56pWXgHTKhk2neHj55FycqekhWEPOzH4qWeBw=; b=gcJ6GB8Zdr5QX5kX94cyiyHuPIsXkJqHVjTi2W0Zb46IdgTOFS8j40V7a2fpfZq8qU uk3g723KJPxFDdF88Xd9IYkEBLAlxIqvUQ75zLhPzvpW2pIGtIfOXFBTpnLKL3MTY9Jx x/EoB3Tw2ys0Fu+BH4NrFgra2uTSf2zM0MdA/YF0GMjkyWN1BAYT9swxuDBhCSAYzu1z RbpPgmEcwJQ7vsDIsVWdyNA/JaJKrOugpfoKPjvdjTh23OKO4/vkSGw1dqRpPaA1aL5m sph4nYPAQBqD6sGV2mxhHlLyyuY/igfU6b8y6E+76cKed5j9/x4aQ96ZvzIC01wJpDha Ugsw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.17.169 with SMTP id p9mr7725452igd.60.1337327768843; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.171.193 with HTTP; Fri, 18 May 2012 00:56:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120424215831.16501.93660.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FA8E4BB.7030000@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 15:56:08 +0800 Message-ID: From: Zhen Cao To: sarikaya@ieee.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-00.txt X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 07:56:10 -0000 Hi Behcet, Thanks for the document and I am some questions. What's the major functionality differences from RFC4191? I believe both of 4191 and your draft is about configuring specific routes to host/router. Then technically, you defined three new options, prefix/nexthop/nexthop-w-prefix, first why we need three new instead of RIO in 4191, and how to relate the prefix option with nexthop option if they are used combined. Thanks and regards, Zhen On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Hi Brian, > > Thank you for your comments. > My replies are inline. > > Behcet > > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: >> Main comment: >> >> I would like to see some discussion (not standardisation) of the >> fact that the proposed new option (not to mention RIO) will need >> a central site-wide configuration mechanism. Otherwise the document >> will give the false impression that it solves the whole problem. >> As we know from the discussion of the DHCP solution, it doesn't. >> > > Sure. I will. Do you mind offering some text? > >> Minor comments: >> >>> 1. =A0Introduction >>> >>> =A0 =A0IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfigura= tion >>> =A0 =A0protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with >>> =A0 =A0various parameters [RFC4861], [RFC4862]. >> >> I think RFC 4191 should also be listed here. In fact I would extend the >> sentence slightly: >> >> =A0 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration >> =A0 protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with >> =A0 various parameters related to addressing and routing [RFC4861], >> =A0 [RFC4862], [RFC4191]. > > OK > >> >> And the next sentence: >> >>> =A0 =A0...DNS Recursive Server >>> =A0 =A0Addresses and Domain Name Search Lists are example parameters th= at >>> =A0 =A0can be configured using router advertisements [RFC6106]. >> >> Please s/example/additional/. As far as I know, RFC 6106 is the only >> extension to RA that is not related to addressing and routing, and >> many people objected even to that small extension. >> > > I agree with this observation. For some time, it has not been possible > to have any extensions on RA options. > >>> 5. =A0Next Hop Address option >> ... >>> =A0 =A0Length: The length of the option (including the type and length >>> =A0 =A0fields) in units of 8 octets. =A0For example, the length for an = IPv6 >>> =A0 =A0address is 3. >> >> Why "for example"?? This is an IPv6 spec. The length is 3, period. >> > > OK > >> Regards >> =A0 Brian Carpenter >> _______________________________________________ >> mif mailing list >> mif@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Mon May 21 15:51:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A37C21F85B9 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 15:51:43 -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 hfXYeA0YJGbq for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 15:51:42 -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 E2B9521F8597 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 15:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so5691503yen.31 for ; Mon, 21 May 2012 15:51:39 -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:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DyOYxGYSnEKYB+kj+tEa1DvjrzVtljWaRsrJyPe2d10=; b=MzQwbM1mtpsulOhr/2v3FmXGiYzXod/5RaOYTN216sb9W2FhuvuBmjqZS+pdBddRw7 45izlsPK7LZ4YjzmDsWBfIsoPDMpkxR++1IhtEN8NjGjJWfK3LPD7mogKn/Hb/8Cdr0O tYINVXhhET5ZsFScRsRQuTE0W3xQ4NRW9O6O5j93kB9E4QgWtJGnFan4llkiKVHPitgD k/zjtcfNHDVk06NPCKNuBjwtAv9oa5mT1LbrhHXuyGufx6AuX5Z+L9GpEJqWSsb5T8HB /bvhYl/Q2mxt8xEhDD5jitcZUn4pq0SOXH8Oiy1h8Tr8+oB6tLrUo3Ut64EjpQNhNynd Ia/w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.181.164 with SMTP id dx4mr8127600igc.9.1337640699376; Mon, 21 May 2012 15:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.78.10 with HTTP; Mon, 21 May 2012 15:51:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120424215831.16501.93660.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FA8E4BB.7030000@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 17:51:39 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Zhen Cao Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-00.txt X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 22:51:43 -0000 Hi Zhen, See my replies inline. Regards, Behcet On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Zhen Cao wrote: > Hi Behcet, > > Thanks for the document and I am some questions. > > What's the major functionality differences from RFC4191? =A0I believe > both of 4191 and your draft is about configuring specific routes to > host/router. Basically to define an improved RIO and two other options, for more, see be= low. As Brian mentioned, these infos need to be configured on the routers and advertised to the hosts and can not be obtained from the routing tables. > > Then technically, you defined three new options, > prefix/nexthop/nexthop-w-prefix, first why we need three new instead > of RIO in 4191, The first option is slightly modifying RIO of 4191 with the route metric field and call it the route prefix option (RPO) to stress on the main info, i.e. the prefix, so it is defining an improved RIO. These RPOs are further improved with the second option of Next Hop Address. The third one simply combines the above two in one. > and how to relate the prefix option with nexthop > option if they are used combined. > It is defined exactly for this purpose to clearly indicate the next hop address associated with the right RPO, to avoid any inconsistency arising from sending the two in two different options. Hope this clarifies. > Thanks and regards, > Zhen > > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Behcet Sarikaya > wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> >> Thank you for your comments. >> My replies are inline. >> >> Behcet >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter >> wrote: >>> Main comment: >>> >>> I would like to see some discussion (not standardisation) of the >>> fact that the proposed new option (not to mention RIO) will need >>> a central site-wide configuration mechanism. Otherwise the document >>> will give the false impression that it solves the whole problem. >>> As we know from the discussion of the DHCP solution, it doesn't. >>> >> >> Sure. I will. Do you mind offering some text? >> >>> Minor comments: >>> >>>> 1. =A0Introduction >>>> >>>> =A0 =A0IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfigur= ation >>>> =A0 =A0protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with >>>> =A0 =A0various parameters [RFC4861], [RFC4862]. >>> >>> I think RFC 4191 should also be listed here. In fact I would extend the >>> sentence slightly: >>> >>> =A0 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguratio= n >>> =A0 protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with >>> =A0 various parameters related to addressing and routing [RFC4861], >>> =A0 [RFC4862], [RFC4191]. >> >> OK >> >>> >>> And the next sentence: >>> >>>> =A0 =A0...DNS Recursive Server >>>> =A0 =A0Addresses and Domain Name Search Lists are example parameters t= hat >>>> =A0 =A0can be configured using router advertisements [RFC6106]. >>> >>> Please s/example/additional/. As far as I know, RFC 6106 is the only >>> extension to RA that is not related to addressing and routing, and >>> many people objected even to that small extension. >>> >> >> I agree with this observation. For some time, it has not been possible >> to have any extensions on RA options. >> >>>> 5. =A0Next Hop Address option >>> ... >>>> =A0 =A0Length: The length of the option (including the type and length >>>> =A0 =A0fields) in units of 8 octets. =A0For example, the length for an= IPv6 >>>> =A0 =A0address is 3. >>> >>> Why "for example"?? This is an IPv6 spec. The length is 3, period. >>> >> >> OK >> >>> Regards >>> =A0 Brian Carpenter >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mif mailing list >>> mif@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >> _______________________________________________ >> mif mailing list >> mif@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif From zehn.cao@gmail.com Wed May 23 00:44:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B67FA21F8495 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:44:59 -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 1zMOtdpJ+8hf for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:44:59 -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 A0A0E21F84B6 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yenq13 with SMTP id q13so7231827yen.31 for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:44:55 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mLJnXhdipVPBP2n8qDZ7/sbCi/YYTT2heXeh4SYmjgg=; b=y//1TTzy0OZkpQj2c1d3bbSwXQBPsxyowidV/l7IajvRwCWeltdaoEtdJjOWGPgMIL Vau5VjD3nejy4ULbWdw7YzP7uEaQATmGEhwbs1nXC0nj/1wqqh1JJ9qlt5/avrA77gUb Xzh2rYSbsZbybNQT1dfA9dDkM0vljqO9HDUlgGozzs5pJHMCu7FHVZ6JNYZ59RUyQkmR KLRC2gSdcpT1AUH2sCbqVPxA2KXCaN1xWj1x8zE+fuGUehVC0q6LPkE3EmL2Rplx0f+2 KycZtrr1Hq8GavvCdfQgYC399CV/Lgy1Rt0SU1vOOg4Ghr3ahStrq0ApWEXbD3s92j3z hvVQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.17.169 with SMTP id p9mr11885971igd.60.1337759094604; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.171.193 with HTTP; Wed, 23 May 2012 00:44:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120424215831.16501.93660.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4FA8E4BB.7030000@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:44:54 +0800 Message-ID: From: Zhen Cao To: sarikaya@ieee.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: Re: [mif] I-D Action: draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-00.txt X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 07:44:59 -0000 >> Thanks for the document and I am some questions. >> >> What's the major functionality differences from RFC4191? =A0I believe >> both of 4191 and your draft is about configuring specific routes to >> host/router. > > Basically to define an improved RIO and two other options, for more, see = below. > As Brian mentioned, these infos need to be configured on the routers > and advertised to the hosts and can not be obtained from the routing > tables. That's not functional difference. I still understand it as technical improvement to the RIO. Then I have to ask what the problem with 4191? Thank you for discussion. >> Then technically, you defined three new options, >> prefix/nexthop/nexthop-w-prefix, first why we need three new instead >> of RIO in 4191, > > The first option is slightly modifying RIO of 4191 with the route > metric field and call it the route prefix option (RPO) to stress on > the main info, i.e. the prefix, > > so it is defining an improved RIO. > > These RPOs are further improved with the second option of Next Hop Addres= s. > > The third one simply combines the above two in one. > >> =A0and how to relate the prefix option with nexthop >> option if they are used combined. >> > > It is defined exactly for this purpose to clearly indicate the next > hop address associated with the right RPO, to avoid any inconsistency > arising from sending the two in two different options. > > Hope this clarifies. > >> Thanks and regards, >> Zhen >> >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Behcet Sarikaya >> wrote: >>> Hi Brian, >>> >>> Thank you for your comments. >>> My replies are inline. >>> >>> Behcet >>> >>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:17 AM, Brian E Carpenter >>> wrote: >>>> Main comment: >>>> >>>> I would like to see some discussion (not standardisation) of the >>>> fact that the proposed new option (not to mention RIO) will need >>>> a central site-wide configuration mechanism. Otherwise the document >>>> will give the false impression that it solves the whole problem. >>>> As we know from the discussion of the DHCP solution, it doesn't. >>>> >>> >>> Sure. I will. Do you mind offering some text? >>> >>>> Minor comments: >>>> >>>>> 1. =A0Introduction >>>>> >>>>> =A0 =A0IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfigu= ration >>>>> =A0 =A0protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with >>>>> =A0 =A0various parameters [RFC4861], [RFC4862]. >>>> >>>> I think RFC 4191 should also be listed here. In fact I would extend th= e >>>> sentence slightly: >>>> >>>> =A0 IPv6 Neighbor Discovery and IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfigurati= on >>>> =A0 protocols can be used to configure fixed and mobile nodes with >>>> =A0 various parameters related to addressing and routing [RFC4861], >>>> =A0 [RFC4862], [RFC4191]. >>> >>> OK >>> >>>> >>>> And the next sentence: >>>> >>>>> =A0 =A0...DNS Recursive Server >>>>> =A0 =A0Addresses and Domain Name Search Lists are example parameters = that >>>>> =A0 =A0can be configured using router advertisements [RFC6106]. >>>> >>>> Please s/example/additional/. As far as I know, RFC 6106 is the only >>>> extension to RA that is not related to addressing and routing, and >>>> many people objected even to that small extension. >>>> >>> >>> I agree with this observation. For some time, it has not been possible >>> to have any extensions on RA options. >>> >>>>> 5. =A0Next Hop Address option >>>> ... >>>>> =A0 =A0Length: The length of the option (including the type and lengt= h >>>>> =A0 =A0fields) in units of 8 octets. =A0For example, the length for a= n IPv6 >>>>> =A0 =A0address is 3. >>>> >>>> Why "for example"?? This is an IPv6 spec. The length is 3, period. >>>> >>> >>> OK >>> >>>> Regards >>>> =A0 Brian Carpenter >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> mif mailing list >>>> mif@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif >>> _______________________________________________ >>> mif mailing list >>> mif@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif --=20 Best regards, Zhen From denghui02@gmail.com Fri May 25 03:31:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6598721F8628 for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 03:31:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, 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 w8D-rcZFMqCj for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 03:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 067B821F8625 for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 03:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by yhq56 with SMTP id 56so514711yhq.31 for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 03:31:12 -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=SDgVE0xbVh0g6+1FZrXJbcZcPJ1HVhZaOMQ6KCoXR5A=; b=HIGazsanSMiwAy6pqwrw0GiMoZVHzXEMKS9fz0K1MPiSSSqMB6J7xhZBjOEKp3Bx4Z uJXyIPvfsc7tQw1IZGDAgJAYJGMs1KEEmHnyBf+wWqB3fEfRxXRMHz5zuWNePStRNF4Q J985LB+4ofDrQ51BzgZUAzwa/eraCb1LS2GaEVuccFi2cVvT1Y+S0sjJM/gUwMKlOhz2 i2XNc+w+GlJkZsfudXhlnIj3+eCrGN8pxOKW5ciZHmGhMjVgWSZKahYgJJ2O0bY/42G0 26GPnFj/UjDmabXtdEaS3Yr8Yx75FZbHdM8z1ac8Z2XFGE873NEBIDII7ZwS+nLdCgZB jBiw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.160.225 with SMTP id xn1mr2062249igb.3.1337941872327; Fri, 25 May 2012 03:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.201.141 with HTTP; Fri, 25 May 2012 03:31:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 18:31:12 +0800 Message-ID: From: Hui Deng To: MIF Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae934066107badc04c0d9de39 Subject: [mif] Conform to adopt happy eyeball X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 10:31:15 -0000 --14dae934066107badc04c0d9de39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello everyone, We had the rough concensus during the last meeting on this, Just conform again here. Best, -Hui --14dae934066107badc04c0d9de39 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello everyone,
=A0
We had the rough concensus during the last meeting on this,
Just conform again here.
=A0
Best,
=A0
-Hui
--14dae934066107badc04c0d9de39-- From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Fri May 25 04:02:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5F3121F85E7 for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:02:31 -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 hRpHiX1jEeRW for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:02:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og106.obsmtp.com (exprod7og106.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.165]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0473021F854C for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob106.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT79mxuNSee+5F9KxCnDe8F+XmU8ihMtJ@postini.com; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:02:31 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFEEC1B82AD for ; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:02:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3010190052; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:02:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 25 May 2012 04:02:30 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Hui Deng Thread-Topic: [mif] Conform to adopt happy eyeball Thread-Index: AQHNOmGGMx6am1h3Sk2wrQIzBSc7E5baVv2D Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:02:29 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: MIF Mailing List Subject: Re: [mif] Conform to adopt happy eyeball X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 11:02:32 -0000 Yes, please.=20 On May 25, 2012, at 4:31 AM, "Hui Deng" wrote: > Hello everyone, > =20 > We had the rough concensus during the last meeting on this, > Just conform again here. > =20 > Best, > =20 > -Hui > _______________________________________________ > mif mailing list > mif@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri May 25 13:58:35 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D3E921F87F7; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:58:35 -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 sY0CPFLOKV1E; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2839F21F87F1; Fri, 25 May 2012 13:58:35 -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 X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120525205835.18449.77647.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:58:35 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-09.txt X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 20:58:35 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Multiple Interfaces Working Group of = the IETF. Title : Improved Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interf= aced Nodes Author(s) : Teemu Savolainen Jun-ya Kato Ted Lemon Filename : draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-09.txt Pages : 25 Date : 2012-05-25 A multi-interfaced node is connected to multiple networks, some of which may be utilizing private DNS namespaces. A node commonly receives recursive DNS server configuration information from all connected networks. Some of the recursive DNS servers may have information about namespaces other servers do not have. When a multi-interfaced node needs to utilize DNS, the node has to choose which of the recursive DNS servers to contact to. This document describes DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options that can be used to configure nodes with information required to perform informed recursive DNS server selection decisions. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-09.= 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-mif-dns-server-selection-09.t= xt The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection/ From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri May 25 15:35:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F1221F851A; Fri, 25 May 2012 15:35:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.421 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.421 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.178, 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 DAjz6ogBiRLs; Fri, 25 May 2012 15:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B7CC21F8514; Fri, 25 May 2012 15:35:06 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120525223506.27199.14220.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 15:35:06 -0700 Cc: mif@ietf.org Subject: [mif] Last Call: (Improved Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced Nodes) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 22:35:07 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Multiple Interfaces WG (mif) to consider the following document: - 'Improved Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced Nodes' 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 2012-06-08. 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 A multi-interfaced node is connected to multiple networks, some of which may be utilizing private DNS namespaces. A node commonly receives recursive DNS server configuration information from all connected networks. Some of the recursive DNS servers may have information about namespaces other servers do not have. When a multi-interfaced node needs to utilize DNS, the node has to choose which of the recursive DNS servers to contact to. This document describes DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options that can be used to configure nodes with information required to perform informed recursive DNS server selection decisions. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. The following IPR declaration may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1103/ From ietf-ipr@ietf.org Wed May 30 10:20:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A03821F865D; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:20:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.438 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.438 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.161, 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 2QA5eiVmhPCQ; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:20:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23EE21F8657; Wed, 30 May 2012 10:20:29 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: IETF Secretariat To: kato@syce.net, ted.lemon@nominum.com, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.02 Message-ID: <20120530172029.19264.20045.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 10:20:29 -0700 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:44:49 -0700 Cc: brian@innovationslab.net, mif@ietf.org, denghui02@hotmail.com, ipr-announce@ietf.org Subject: [mif] IPR Disclosure: Nokia Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-mif-dns-server-selection-09 X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 17:20:31 -0000 Dear Jun-ya Kato, Ted Lemon, Teemu Savolainen: An IPR disclosure that pertains to your Internet-Draft entitled "Improved Recursive DNS Server Selection for Multi-Interfaced Nodes" (draft-ietf-mif-= dns- server-selection) was submitted to the IETF Secretariat on 2012-05-30 and h= as been posted on the "IETF Page of Intellectual Property Rights Disclosures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1791/). The title of the IPR disclosure is "Nokia Corporation's Statement about IPR related to draft-ietf-mif-dns-serv= er- selection-09.""); The IETF Secretariat