RE: Off-link and on-link

["Hesham Soliman" <Hesham at elevatemobile.com>]

 > 
 > I am getting back to replying to some emails that were sent 
 > in response
 > to our drafts. I did explain what an aggregation router was 
 > when we met
 > face to face at IETF. If you had read our drafts, that was one way to
 > learn about properties of an aggregation router wrt to ND. It was
 > unfortunate, neither you or Hesham had read our drafts when 

=> Would you please not attribute things to me? I did read the draft before
I commented in the meeting. I don't know why you keep repeating this. 

Hesham

 > folks like
 > Jinmei Tatuya, Alain Durand, Jari, and Vlad have. 
 > 
 > Anyhow, RFC 4388 mentions an access concentrator. When this 
 > concentrator
 > supports routing, the device is an aggregation router.
 > 
 > Hemant
 > 
 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:erik.nordmark at sun.com] 
 > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:29 PM
 > To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
 > Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6 at ietf.org
 > Subject: Re: Off-link and on-link
 > 
 > Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
 > > Suresh,
 > > 
 > > At least our drafts do not ask for a new off-link flag. 
 > Without a new 
 > > off-link flag your scenario will have to go with (a). But do note, 
 > > aggregation routers do not send Redirects. So the scenario below 
 > > cannot be even supported on aggregation routers.
 > 
 > Which RFC defines an "aggregation router"?
 > 
 >     Erik
 > 
 > > 
 > > Hemant
 > > 
 > > -----Original Message-----
 > > From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krishnan at ericsson.com]
 > > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:01 AM
 > > To: ipv6 at ietf.org
 > > Subject: Off-link and on-link
 > > 
 > > Hi Hesham/Dave/Erik,
 > >   I am not taking a stand on whether an explicit off-link flag is 
 > > necessary/useful or not, but I have encountered a scenario 
 > where the 
 > > existing algorithm specified in RFC4861 does not work very 
 > well. Let's
 > 
 > > say a router wants to signal to the clients that 
 > 2001:dead:beef::/48 
 > > is on-link except for 2001:dead:beef:abcd::/64 that is 
 > off-link. How 
 > > would it go about describing this? I see two ways
 > > 
 > > a) Advertise the /48 with L=0 and send redirects for all 
 > addresses not
 > 
 > > on the /64
 > > b) Advertise the /48 with L=1 and the /64 with Q(the new off-link 
 > > flag)=0
 > > 
 > > I see b) as being more efficient than a)
 > > 
 > > P.S: I do not think that this scenario is very likely, 
 > just possible.
 > > 
 > > Cheers
 > > Suresh
 > > 
 > > 
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
 > > ipv6 at ietf.org
 > > Administrative Requests: 
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
 > > 
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > > 
 > > 
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
 > > ipv6 at ietf.org
 > > Administrative Requests: 
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
 > > 
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
 > ipv6 at ietf.org
 > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6 at ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------