Thanks Claudio for the additional information. It is of note that this draft is expected to obsolete two RFCs -- RFC 3831 (Transmission of IPv6 Packets over Fibre Channel) as mentioned below as well as RFC 2625(IP and ARP over Fibre Channel). Note that RFC 2625 is IPv4 specific. Per the discussion at the IMSS meeting at IETF-61(Washington, D.C.) there was a number of parties interested in moving RFC 2625 to proposed standard, but discovered that this was not feasible, for a number of reasons, including requirements and restrictions imposed by 2625 that are not adhered to by two or more interoperable implementations. For this reason, it was felt that RFC 2625 needed to be replaced. Since the new work was based on RFC3831, consensus was reached that this combined draft should replace both 2625 and 3831.
Thanks, Elizabeth Rodriguez IMSS Chair Note: I have added the IPv6 WG to this announcement. My apologies for not including the IPv6 WG in the first release, since they provided valuable input when RFC3831 was being discussed previously. In summary, IMSS is holding a WG last call for "Transmission of IPv6, IPv4 and ARP Packets over Fibre Channel.", with the last call period ending on March 17, 2005. The original announcement as well as additional information follows. -----Original Message----- From: Claudio DeSanti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IMSS WG last call on Transmission of IPv6, IPv4 and ARP Packets over Fibre Channel Elizabeth, just a couple of notes to help people reviewing this document. As agreed at the last WG meeting, this document incorporates and clarifies RFC 3831. The differential document http://www.t11.org/ftp/t11/pub/fc/ipv4fc/05-093v0.pdf lists the differences with RFC 3831. draft-ietf-imss-ip-over-fibre-channel-00.txt introduces also a small technical change to RFC 3831, a change regarding the position of the padding in the Neighbor Discovery Link-layer Address option. RFC 3831 (in figure 20) prepended two bytes of padding to the Link-layer Address, in order to have a better aligned option. Early implementors of RFC 3831 found difficult to implement this prepended padding, because it has been discovered that current implementations of Neighbor Discovery assume that the padding is always appended to the Link-layer Address. Given that Fibre Channel developers often develops only a driver for the Fibre Channel interface and do not have access to the operating system code that handles Neighbor Discovery, the only way to implement RFC 3831 would have been then to trap each received Link-layer Address option, reformat it by putting the padding after the Link-layer Address, and then pass the reformatted option to the O.S. The opposite process would have to be performed when the O.S. generates a Link-layer address option. This completely overcomes the intent of the better alignment of the option, which was to make implementations more efficient. For this reason, draft-ietf-imss-ip-over-fibre-channel-00.txt put instead the padding after the Link-layer Address (see figure 23). Gien that there are not yet implementations of RFC 3831 in the field, this change does not introduce any backward compatibility problem and fixes the only implementation issue found in RFC 3831. Fibre Channel is not the only technology that has to deal with padding in the Neighbor Discovery Link-layer Address option. As an example, also the IP over Infiniband WG is dealing with a similar issue about prepending or appending the padding. Best regards, Claudio. At 04:58 PM 2/22/2005 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Hello all, > >I would like to announce IMSS working group last call on the Transmission of >IPv6, IPv4 and ARP Packets over Fibre Channel working group draft. > >Details: >Name: Transmission of IPv6, IPv4 and ARP Packets over Fibre Channel >URL: >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ip-over-fibre-channel-0 0 >.txt >Editor/Authors: Claudio DeSanti ([EMAIL PROTECTED]), Craig Carlson >([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Bob Nixon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >Last Call period: Three weeks, ending March 17 at 11:59pm EST. > >Technical comments on the draft should be discussed on the IMSS reflector at >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Editorial comments may be discussed on the reflector or be >submitted to the editor/authors directly at the above addresses, with a copy >to Elizabeth Rodriguez at [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Thanks, > >Elizabeth Rodriguez >IMSS Chair > >To Unsubscribe: >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
