RE: RS sending in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04

["Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Wojciech Dec (wdec) 
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 3:24 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Konrad Rosenbaum
Cc: Philip Homburg; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: RS sending in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-04


>It appears that you have not followed the discussion (the source
address is
>to be used to bind the address to a user, not to authenticate), nor
read
>draft-krishnan-rs-mark or savi activities. I suggest that you do so,
incl
>the extensive mail archives on those topics, and come back explaining
your
>technical concerns more clearly.

I wanted to clarify why the term of authenticate was used as snipped
below from one of the emails on this thread. 

"Functionally, as I said previously, it's important for the RS that is
used to authenticate a given user to contain an IP address that can be
attributed to that same user at the BNG."

Further, I have been following Suresh's documents in 6man and that WG
has not agreed to his documents yet.  It's not like I have not read the
documents.   I have basic fundamental questions like what others (Thomas
Narten for one) in 6man have asked on RA marking - what exactly is the
DSL problem that work of such drafts is needed?  What is there to read
when not a single DSL related document has been accepted as a 6man WG
work item?  As for SAVI activities, it is interesting to me that SAVI
for DSL is being worked on when 6man doesn't even agree upon what is the
DSL IPv6 data problem that needs specification.  I am responding do this
thread for the IPv6 CE Rtr trying to understand what extra reqs need to
go into the CE Rtr document.  The IPv6 CE Rtr document does not want to
include any text for issues in a state of flux.  Why is the RS with
unspecified src address a problem but the NS(DAD) with unspecified src
address not a problem?  Doesn't DSL have to deal with NS(DAD)? Or have
DSL standards dispensed with NS(DAD)?  These are the issues that first
need some clarity in the IETF before one can jump to SAVI or adding reqs
to the IPv6 CE Rtr.  

Hemant