Hi all,
About draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-sol-00.txt, we are going to update
it after looking over the last meeting minutes and comments. (http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/minutes
)
Does someone have further comments?
Thanks in advance,
Begin forwarded message:
差出人: Ruri Hiromi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
日時: 2008年4月30日 14:05:43:JST
宛先: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Dave Thaler
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Nordmark
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob
Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Arifumi Matsumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "(Tomohiro 智宏) -
INSTALLER- Fujisaki/藤崎" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 金山
KANAYAMA Ken-ichi 健一 / <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ruri Hiromi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
件名: your comments for 6man, draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-
sol-00.txt
Hello,
We would like to summarise the comments we have had during IETF71 on
our Address Solution Analysis document. (draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-
sol-00.txt)
6man chairs also told us getting more comment from yours.
First of all, could I summarise your comment as follows.
[1, from dthaler] pick up Marcelo Bagnulo's 3484 update, the
behavior of his proposal in 3484 update will be hard to choose
destination address selection. And also there will be a need to
select those of src/dest address from application, especially in
with multi-interfaces, how does it be carried out?
[2, from Erik] additional thoughts of "interface selection", how
does it be described in this document?
[3, from Jinmei] Should update 3484.
[4, from Thomas Narten] Consideration about uRPF, but it is
described in Problem Statement doc.
[5, From Bob Hinden] Check out the current status of 3484 update.
About [2], There is no obvious proposal about this. This document is
simply evaluate solutions. Currently we are just considering about
interface selection(*), but it seems to be for a specific
circumstance, not for the general purpose. Do you have heard any
idea of this?
(put some weight for each interface to be selectable from API, like
DNS mechanism)
About [3], Apart from this solution analysis document, Arifumi will
do this(?). Updating RFC3484 itself will be allright but there are
no consensus about ULA into a policy table. How does it be
treated? I am anxious about that we should update RFC3484 every
time if there will be other special use address blocks. To comply
with these demands, it will be better to insert policies(hints)
from others(ie, admin), we think.
About [4], your suggesting point is described in Problem Statement
document, and there are some solutions against/co-working with
uRPF. Do you mean we should describe it in Requirement? Also we
agree with your 2nd point of that we should carefully find "general
solution".
Could you please review your comment and send us modification or
further comments?
Regards,
-------------------------------
Ruri Hiromi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
