Re: clarification regarding PIO-X
Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Thu, 17 November 2016 00:25 UTC
Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
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 1CC5812946F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:25:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3fw7oaCEp1ob for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22a.google.com (mail-wm0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53983126579 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id f82so110738949wmf.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:25:31 -0800 (PST)
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-transfer-encoding; bh=ahfR6ntsFuInokYeAWFhCN18ds3/uV6ZfLkCl8b1VT0=; b=aP1O3OJssYvSPIc7WGYnYxJfxkSRu7OxPIxQQQA3e9BG82tFEFIcZe2ECjqyTRrY5N U69tPoPo8qO0q2FbbM4dPbeJW/83hlWAif4jEkVfqT7QEVv0YzynBKtLsk9DXMQPnbj4 HXpAoNM7rHHkh5E++Rb4s1Lu+qXQ2fF8aiqSfvMEnLZuZVlAzTaesC7la7N3lnC6tLea nyxZPQEZjBL78PbgGhGpW3UpXWa6NPQN7lZ217uAG1JQpp5jKxNzlwnFHmQXg19cgOJ8 iD0gmMJnH18nYFSdzBYGcFVFvH3Hc/TAeIFBpDP02BFY8m+0wI7F5GX5C60R0uuG0Bf2 dDJg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ahfR6ntsFuInokYeAWFhCN18ds3/uV6ZfLkCl8b1VT0=; b=EDeGdQC5APPbKaWNSh2x75QUnjb9seqqzmHm5puLhDamne4O6aCWLCJ5KaGuncZ3cR UeCgg1eQtUlvxKUe1BIjC3dnsK1f0t8a0bM/u1s1/xDMaAAVNP78nV+sLJEs4NL7OASx jhZduq75YVUTr2+3WFwXfHPhSt44MqCBMlTD08Ys+irE6RaKzagxQds0RastLkQDbh+Z P7If6PorsZExaiPglTP89xDL6qF8J/4UtegJUhrhjY1PyZ402gdcIsw0epWcupl/Kiyq 1JQ3+IhDJUqms77LrqXsQ0PvJXUSg/zAVD7PizO2LIh+M2awC7H3HpB4k1KLOuBdvPv1 hWKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00uhzBpIJoaD4aQ0f4dPLIu9tQFH/hBB1CUSanrrH8vITZbab5Zk1+m6lhTYiVVegDyQuCtTrJATPyGQev5
X-Received: by 10.194.203.135 with SMTP id kq7mr261838wjc.26.1479342329803; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:25:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.11.195 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:25:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <380864e4-5ade-6190-ab3f-469321b19102@gmail.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1611160922360.14320@uplift.swm.pp.se> <380864e4-5ade-6190-ab3f-469321b19102@gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 09:25:09 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxqvKjRbnWo5aKFmARW04DsXY-rSt==3VpkGLEw31srppQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: clarification regarding PIO-X
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/Q29t6kywAcbzoa1ZLfw4tHgz6Ew>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 00:25:33 -0000
On 16 November 2016 at 18:35, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le 16/11/2016 à 17:29, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit : >> >> >> Hi, >> >> I am confused. >> >> http://www.iana.org/assignments/icmpv6-parameters/icmpv6-parameters.xhtml >> >> 3 Prefix Information [RFC4861] 17 IP Address/Prefix Option >> [RFC5568] 18 New Router Prefix Information Option [RFC4068] >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6275#section-7.2 >> >> which one of these options does the above RFC update? > > > The first one (value 3). Mobile IPv6 RFC6275 modifies the PIO sent by > HAs on the home link to help them build lists of Home Agents. This > touches the same Reserved1 field that PIO-X touches currently. Thanks. I'll update the PIO-X draft with the R bit, shift the proposed X bit one to the right, and scan other documents for other allocations of PIO flags... As for a new ND option type for a new PIO-X type, I would rather not do that. That would completely negate the backward compatibility benefit. (And trying to support backward compatibility by transmitting the same prefix in both PIO and PIO-X options in a single RA would seem to me to be just needlessly inflating the size of the RA.)
- clarification regarding PIO Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: clarification regarding PIO Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: clarification regarding PIO-X Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: clarification regarding PIO-X Erik Kline
- Re: clarification regarding PIO-X Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: clarification regarding PIO-X otroan
- Re: clarification regarding PIO-X Alexandre Petrescu