Re: [16NG] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [16NG] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Alex,
On 3/14/07 11:47 AM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>
wrote:
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Hello,
A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at:
http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
This revision incorporates changes based on some of the comments made by the
directorate. It will be submitted to the ID repository as soon as the gates
are opened.
Raj, is there a plan to deal with the interoperability issue where the
AP tells the Station to auto-configure statelessly and the AR tells it
statefully?
The AP may send REG-RSP telling the Station to use DHCP.
The AR may send an RA telling the Station to use SLAAC.
The issue arises when we consider managed and unmanaged hosts as defined by
802.16. Managed hosts are the ones that may use the secondary management
connection. Secondary management connection is optional and as we have
discussed in the past this is an option in the .16 specs that exists but
very likely unused. I can tell you that in the case of Mobile WiMAX the
secondary management connection is not used.
Ok. I'm wondering whether IEEE can mention to Mobile WiMax that the
secondary management connection seems mandatory. Sure that's not IETF
matter, but IETF does IPv6, and for IEEE IPv6 config happens only on the
SMC (secondary management connection)... complicated.
I agree that a BS and the AR should be synchronized in terms of what method
is indicated to the MS for address configuration.
There may be an interoperability issue, if the two indicators are different.
Yes.
This issue can of course be considered as a network management issue,
where advice could be given to network lo=ietf-mx.ietf.org)
by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1HRnvO-0001NY-RL; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:15:14 -0400
Received: from mail153.messagelabs.com ([216.82.253.51])
by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43)
id 1HRnvM-0006Oa-E5; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:15:14 -0400
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com
X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-153.messagelabs.com!1173957307!5103290!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.10.7.1; banners=.,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [129.188.136.8]
Received: (qmail 25536 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2007 11:15:07 -0000
Received: from motgate8.mot.com (HELO motgate8.mot.com) (129.188.136.8)
by server-13.tower-153.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
15 Mar 2007 11:15:07 -0000
Received: from il06exr03.mot.com (il06exr03.mot.com [129.188.137.133])
by motgate8.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id l2FBF6M8019636;
Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:15:06 -0700 (MST)
Received: from [10.161.201.117] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117])
by il06exr03.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id l2FBF5CP002705;
Thu, 15 Mar 2007 06:15:05 -0500 (CDT)
Message-ID: <45F92AB9.6020802 at gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:15:05 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (Windows/20070221)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Basavaraj Patil <basavaraj.patil at nokia.com>
References: <C21DC170.3170A%basavaraj.patil at nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <C21DC170.3170A%basavaraj.patil at nokia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 6cca30437e2d04f45110f2ff8dc1b1d5
Cc: ext Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>, ipv6 at ietf.org,
ietf at ietf.org, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce at ietf.org>, 16ng at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [16NG] Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs
X-BeenThere: ietf at ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf at ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>,
<mailto:ietf-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ietf-bounces at ietf.org
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Alex,
On 3/14/07 11:47 AM, "ext Alexandru Petrescu" <alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com>
wrote:
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Hello,
A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at:
http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
This revision incorporates changes based on some of the comments made by the
directorate. It will be submitted to the ID repository as soon as the gates
are opened.
Raj, is there a plan to deal with the interoperability issue where the
AP tells the Station to auto-configure statelessly and the AR tells it
statefully?
The AP may send REG-RSP telling the Station to use DHCP.
The AR may send an RA telling the Station to use SLAAC.
The issue arises when we consider managed and unmanaged hosts as defined by
802.16. Managed hosts are the ones that may use the secondary management
connection. Secondary management connection is optional and as we have
discussed in the past this is an option in the .16 specs that exists but
very likely unused. I can tell you that in the case of Mobile WiMAX the
secondary management connection is not used.
Ok. I'm wondering whether IEEE can mention to Mobile WiMax that the
secondary management connection seems mandatory. Sure that's not IETF
matter, but IETF does IPv6, and for IEEE IPv6 config happens only on the
SMC (secondary management connection)... complicated.
I agree that a BS and the AR should be synchronized in terms of what method
is indicated to the MS for address configuration.
There may be an interoperability issue, if the two indicators are different.
Yes.
This issue can of course be considered as a network management issue,
where advice could be given to network deployers of AR and AP to
configure their networks correctly.
Correct. A deployment should be able to ensure that the indication to the MS
in the REG-RSP and RA are synchronized. I can add some text in the I-D to
ensure that this issue is noted in the address configuration section.
Right, this is what I meant. I think it's a good way forward for the
IPv6-CS draft until Mobile WiMax and IEEE figure out.
And this is a time when both 802.16 is changing (Corrigendum 2 under
discussion but still allows AP to indicate to MN what autoconf method to
use) and the RA definition is changing (draft-2462bis indicates 'M' flag
may not be used, but an 'autonomous' flag instead).
What do you think? Do I get this issue correctly? Or is the issue
important, less important, etc.
This is a valid issue but I think it can be clarified in the I-D itself by
recognizing it and recommending that the indication by the BS and AR are
synced. We can also mention it to IEEE but that is about the scope of things
that we can do.
I agree. I have a list of such issues that could be mentioned to IEEE.
I'm not talking put requirements to IEEE, just mention the potential
issues.
Alex
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
deployers of AR and AP to
configure their networks correctly.
Correct. A deployment should be able to ensure that the indication to the MS
in the REG-RSP and RA are synchronized. I can add some text in the I-D to
ensure that this issue is noted in the address configuration section.
Right, this is what I meant. I think it's a good way forward for the
IPv6-CS draft until Mobile WiMax and IEEE figure out.
And this is a time when both 802.16 is changing (Corrigendum 2 under
discussion but still allows AP to indicate to MN what autoconf method to
use) and the RA definition is changing (draft-2462bis indicates 'M' flag
may not be used, but an 'autonomous' flag instead).
What do you think? Do I get this issue correctly? Or is the issue
important, less important, etc.
This is a valid issue but I think it can be clarified in the I-D itself by
recognizing it and recommending that the indication by the BS and AR are
synced. We can also mention it to IEEE but that is about the scope of things
that we can do.
I agree. I have a list of such issues that could be mentioned to IEEE.
I'm not talking put requirements to IEEE, just mention the potential
issues.
Alex
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions
of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.
