headers
Lawrence Zou | 6 Jun 06:04
Favicon

questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00

hi,wen:

     i have read you draft.  Although there are some strong technical
points in this document,  i still think there are some big problem:

1. I noticed  that in all 3 Scenarios, the RS message must include ISP
name sub-option,so,is it a "MUST"  sub-optinon that be include in the 
Multi-homing Information option? if it is true,what will it happen if
the host don't know the name of the ISP? I think in the Scenarios of
stateless 
addres autoconfigue, it is not necessary for host to know the topology
of the network and the name of the ISP.
in your draft ,all hosts know clearly which ISP they belong to ,I think
we can distinguish them using some kinds of  VLAN techonoly.

2.In Scenario 3,you mention the equipment of "layer2 CPE ".so what the
difference is that with "layer3 CPE "? In my understand ,the layer2 CPE 
is a layer2 equipmnet ,so in the section 3.3 
   Step (b) : Base on the information in Multi-homing Information option
              , layer 2 access node can forward this RS to the correct
              edge router of the desired ISP without sending it to the 
              router that will not respond this RS.	

 can layer2 equipment do this kind of thing?
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Lawrence Zou | 6 Jun 09:08
Favicon

RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00

sorry,I am confused by your draft.

in section 1 you mentioned the purpose of your idear is  "How to help
host implement 
   exit router selection and the associated prefix or address selection
"

in my understand ,
your prblem is the host have got several prefix or addresses from
different routers,when the host have some data to send to a destination,
it must choose a source address and a exit router. is that true?

for this purpose ,the host send RS with the multihome-option that carry
some information such as ISP name ,then  the corresponding exit router
response it  wiht  RA.

but  I think if the host have know which ISP it will got it's
service(explicit by ISP name),that also mean the host have already
selected one exit router and the corresponding source address.

maybe i have misunderstand the procedure.can you explain it more
explicit ? 

thanks 

Best regards

Lawrence

>-----Original Message-----
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lawrence Zou | 6 Jun 11:32
Favicon

RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00


>-----Original Message-----
>From: CTO WEN Haibo [mailto:Haibo.WEN <at> alcatel-sbell.com.cn] 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:54 PM
>To: Lawrence Zou
>Cc: multi6 <at> ops.ietf.org; shim6 <at> psg.com
>Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00
>
>
>Lawrence,
>
>In current IPv6 multihoming site, each hosts in this site can 
>have multiple prefixes from different exit routers. It cannot 
>identify which ISP assignes 
>the exact prefix, because there is no extra information in 
>prefix information option.
>
>The multi-homing information defined in this draft is used 
>along with prefix information option. It will provide extra 
>information for host to do selection. Host only selects the 
>prefix from the desired ISP to form its IPv6 address, of 
>course, the corresponding exit router will be cached. Other 
>prefixes from other routers will not be used to form IP 
>address. For example, STB may only want services from IPTV 
>service provider. Other prefixes from other service providers 
>are useless for itself.

yes,i think you point out the most important thing:the host only form IP
adress it will use it .
so i guess that:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Kurt Erik Lindqvist | 7 Jun 02:49
Picon

Re: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00


I'd like to point out that the multi6 WG has completed it's work and  
should be closed down - and as soon as that happens I will close this  
mailinglist.

- kurtis -

On 6 jun 2006, at 06.04, Lawrence Zou wrote:

> hi,wen:
>
>      i have read you draft.  Although there are some strong technical
> points in this document,  i still think there are some big problem:
>
> 1. I noticed  that in all 3 Scenarios, the RS message must include ISP
> name sub-option,so,is it a "MUST"  sub-optinon that be include in the
> Multi-homing Information option? if it is true,what will it happen if
> the host don't know the name of the ISP? I think in the Scenarios of
> stateless
> addres autoconfigue, it is not necessary for host to know the topology
> of the network and the name of the ISP.
> in your draft ,all hosts know clearly which ISP they belong to ,I  
> think
> we can distinguish them using some kinds of  VLAN techonoly.
>
> 2.In Scenario 3,you mention the equipment of "layer2 CPE ".so what the
> difference is that with "layer3 CPE "? In my understand ,the layer2  
> CPE
> is a layer2 equipmnet ,so in the section 3.3
>    Step (b) : Base on the information in Multi-homing Information
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lawrence Zou | 7 Jun 05:18
Favicon

RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00

I am not sure the topic  in your document is in the domain of  shim6,in
fact ,I think it will be bettter to discuss in IPV6 WG because you want
to add option in RS/RA message.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: CTO WEN Haibo [mailto:Haibo.WEN <at> alcatel-sbell.com.cn] 
>Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:34 AM
>To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist; Lawrence Zou
>Cc: multi6 <at> ops.ietf.org
>Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00
>
>
>Kurtis,
>
>Thank you for your reminder.
>I have subscribed the shim6 WG, and also forwarded the 
>discussion in that group.
>
>Lawrence, maybe you should subscribe shim6 WG, too.
>
>Best regards,
>
>-Haibo
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis <at> kurtis.pp.se]
>> Sent: 2006年6月7日 08:50
>> To: Lawrence Zou
>> Cc: CTO WEN Haibo; multi6 <at> ops.ietf.org
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane