AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt

[<Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de>]

Hi Sri,

had a read of your I-D right now and think that it is a very interesting and useful work. I see also some applicability in the BBF context for handling of RAs in a N:1 VLAN scenario for instance.
Unfortunately I don't recall the status of the I-D after the last IETF, is it on the road to become a WG item?
I would vote for that.
Kind regards
Olaf 


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] Im Auftrag von Sri Gundavelli
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. Juli 2010 02:59
> An: IPv6 Operations
> Cc: Stig Venaas
> Betreff: Re: AW: I-D Action:draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt 
> 
> Thanks to Stig for his review of the draft. Will reword the 
> below text,
> should be in -01 version.
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Stig Venaas <stig@venaas.com>
> Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 13:03:29 -0800
> To: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: L2 Unicast of multicast messages - ID
> 
> >> I think the document is fine. I've followed some of the previous
> >> discussion on this topic. Just one comment.
> >>
> >> In section 3 it says:
> >>
> >>        address in the link-layer header will be an unicast 
> address.  It
> >>        is up to to the system architecture as when to 
> transmit a IPv6
> >>        multicast message as an link-layer unicast message, 
> as long as
> >>        there is no real impact to the multicast communication.
> >>
> >> This sentence is pretty vague. Especially "no real 
> impact", not sure
> >> what that means. And what do you mean by "multicast communication".
> >>
> >> Also, the reason you may want the system architecture to transmit
> >> unicast, is that it has a positive impact on the 
> communication, right?
> >> If whether you use unicast or not has no impact, then this would be
> >> pointless ;)
> >>
> > 
> > :) My point is that, if the usage of the semantic is used 
> in the right away,
> > there should be any impact to the multicast communication. 
> If I'm hosting
> > two IPv6 VLAN's on the same 802.11 link, if the AP ensures 
> the RA's are
> > segregated and sent to the right groups, its to me no 
> impact to multicast
> > communication.  But, I see your point, this needs to worded 
> correctly. I
> > will fix this in -01 version, posted it a hour back.
> 
> Sorry I was a bit late. I think the draft is good. Just trying to be a
> bit difficult here :) But I think it can be made clearer.
> 
> Stig
> 
> 
> 
>