Hesham,

OK, if you read the draft(s), my apologies. Sorry if you said so in the
IETF meeting too and I missed the fact.

However, I have one question. If you read the drafts, which of the
following four have you read?

http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/hemantsingh.html 

So far folks who read our drafts also sent comments to the IETF mailers.
Jinmei and Vlad to ipv6 IETF mailer and Alain Durand to the IETF DHC
mailer.
 
Thanks.

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Hesham Soliman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 7:58 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); 'Erik Nordmark'
Cc: [email protected]; 'Suresh Krishnan'
Subject: RE: Off-link and on-link

 >
 > 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]  > Sent:
Wednesday, December 05, 2007 3:29 PM  > To: Hemant Singh (shemant)  >
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; [email protected]  > 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 > > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:01 AM  > > To: [email protected]
> > 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  > > [email protected]  > >
Administrative Requests: 
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
 > >
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > >
 > >
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list  > > [email protected]  > >
Administrative Requests: 
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
 > >
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 >
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
 > [email protected]
 > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
 > --------------------------------------------------------------------
 > 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to