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

[Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>]

Hi Olaf,

Thanks for the review comments and on the use-case. Its not WG doc yet, but
since its just a clarification note, I'm hoping this can be moved faster.

Regards
Sri
 




On 7/22/10 5:35 AM, "Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de" <Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de>
wrote:

> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>