Hi, Sheng Thanks for your comments. This is the first step, to see if there is consensus of agreeing the problems should be fixed in current standard. If so, we'll submit a draft to fix the ambiguous issue.
B.R. Bing > -----Original Message----- > From: Sheng Jiang > Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 11:37 AM > To: Liubing (Leo); [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps > > This has been a historic issue. Although there was discussions several times, > the specification still remain ambiguous. The differences in OS > implementations are good proof that we need to do something in IETF. > > This document has well described the current standard status and reality > operational issues. However, for me, this document fails to suggest what we > may do to fix this issue, neither in the gap section or as conclusion. It is > clear > that part of RFC4862 needs to be updated to make the configuration > behavior clear and consistent. For that, this document fails to give a > feasible > proposal. Maybe, the authors has saved that for another follow up standard > track document. > > Best regards, > > Sheng > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf > >Of Liubing (Leo) > >Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 3:14 PM > >To: [email protected]; [email protected] > >Cc: [email protected] > >Subject: [renum] SLAAC/DHCPv6 addr-conf operational gaps > > > >Hi, 6man & v6ops > > > >We submitted a new draft to discuss the SLAAC/DHCPv6 interaction gaps. > > > >As we know there are several flags in RA messages regarding with the host > >configuration behavior, which are A (Autonomous) flag, M (Managed) flag, > >and O (Otherconfig) flag. > >For some reason, the host behavior of interpreting the flags is ambiguous in > >the standard (mainly RFC4862). I presented a draft discussing M flag > behavior > >in 6man @ietf84, and there were some feedbacks arguing the same issue. > >This draft analyzed all the three flags, and provided test result of current > >implementations, it showed the behavior of different mainstream desktop > >OSes have varied. The ambiguous and variation might cause operational > >problems, such as renumbering (used to discuss in 6renum WG and been > >documented in the WG drafts), cold start problem, and management > >gaps .etc. > > > >Your review and comments would be appreciated very much. > > > >All the best, > >Bing > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 5:52 PM > >> To: Liubing (Leo) > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Subject: New Version Notification for > >> draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt > >> > >> > >> A new version of I-D, draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01.txt > >> has been successfully submitted by Bing Liu and posted to the > >> IETF repository. > >> > >> Filename: draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem > >> Revision: 01 > >> Title: DHCPv6/SLAAC Address Configuration Interaction Problem > >> Statement > >> Creation date: 2013-02-25 > >> Group: Individual Submission > >> Number of pages: 12 > >> URL: > >> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem- > >> 01.txt > >> Status: > >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem > >> Htmlized: > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01 > >> Diff: > >> > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-liu-bonica-dhcpv6-slaac-problem-01 > >> > >> Abstract: > >> This document analyzes the host behavior of DHCPv6/SLAAC > interaction > >> issue. It reviews the standard definition of the host behaviors and > >> provides the test results of current mainstream implementations. > Some > >> potential operational gaps of the interaction are also described. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The IETF Secretariat > > > >_______________________________________________ > >renum mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/renum -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
