[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Fwd: draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption and draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault]
- To: Alain Durand <alain@tycool.net>
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption and draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault]
- From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:41:52 -0700
- Cc: Lindqvist Erik Kurt <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, sebastien roy <sebastien.roy@sun.com>, David Kessens <david.kessens@nokia.com>, Jim Paugh <Jim.Paugh@sun.com>, "'v6ops@ops.ietf.org '" <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
- Iim-sig: v:"1.1"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; d:"cisco.com"; z:"home"; m:"krs"; t:"1113006818.605764"; x:"432200"; a:"rsa-sha1"; b:"nofws:3968"; e:"Iw=="; n:"sQYarK2E51MdcTiUqeif3F7cWdxIfoCiXhdfb9vD5ee/j0jXL15gbFxF2p" "XIweAblu0N6XAgK7k+wrbr7bQDJaCDqOmzqpRUBjIRQAXQ7NzadpmR3pUL6wxaRUtW+c43sl9jC" "50Qg1sXHpPjt8Y+Y16ioyQAQAdSunM4YhevURc="; s:"ILo/3Y3Ob4cE41wCqKxvhCqndlC0LVuq/pdfw6e7Bv/twxoCo7eHgCzH4l/JV0+eyZNkHeJb" "1POMvXYz1c+Y4L5QbJzO/bHNPJsZxPA0OxROLaVIAZV8WKo5lxEuPK6t6eQoIKxDHslSzYIDcQ7" "HChRYTmNGsJZF00TO5sd7W7A="; c:"From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>"; c:"Subject: Re: [Fwd: draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption and draft-ietf-" "v6ops-v6onbydefault]"; c:"Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:41:52 -0700"
- Iim-verify: s:"y"; v:"y"; r:"60"; h:"imail.cisco.com"; c:"message from imail.cisco.com verified; "
- In-reply-to: <0af6ef342cbf8a44b60c1a5ab81b7cb8@tycool.net>
- References: <42522B33.7010005@Sun.COM> <0af6ef342cbf8a44b60c1a5ab81b7cb8@tycool.net>
On Apr 8, 2005, at 4:39 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
I can understand the first part, but not the second. Could the AD or the chairs clarify what further work is necessary?
I have asked David and not gotten a reply.
In the working group meeting in March, both my minuted and Mikael's note that David stated that he felt that publication of these drafts were unnecessary once the problems they addressed were fixed in the network. Your comment in the same discussion was that documenting the issues had validity beyond the scope of the timeline.
As you note in response to the minutes,
The on-link assumption draft will be published with draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2461bis, which removes that assumption.
draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2461bis remove the on-link assumption text but does not provide the rationale for the change.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-07.txt is right now awaiting an updated draft (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=11541&rfc_flag=0 for comments ). If this is the primary reason for publishing this document, then maybe some text (comparable to Allison's other 'discuss' questions) could simply be handled there? If not, please advise specifically what additional issues are covered?
From my perspective, I don't have a problem sending on-link-assumption back with an appropriate report and publishing it with rfc2461bis. But I think I need to ask you to compare notes with the authors of the other and ensure that the two drafts are entirely in sync.
v6onbydefault is rather another story from my perspective. Many end systems are now coming with IPv6 on by default, and software images are available from most common routers (even Linksys, which normally doesn't do anything without a groundswell customer demand). For routers, one also wants to design the network and appropriately configure them, so they don't usually come with even IPv4 on by default in a routing configuration. So if you were presenting arguments for doing so, the arguments are OBE. Willing to be told otherwise, but here my advice would be to take "yes" as an answer form the equipment and OS folks...