Subject: [DNA] RA Options draft - draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt

From: Brett Pentland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:11:45 +1100

Hi DNA folks,

Sorry if this has already been mentioned ( I missed a few days of list
activity, if any, and there doesn't seem to be a February archive yet
).

The IPv6 WG may be considering this draft (see the email thread below
from the IPv6 WG) for a way to deal with the dwindling supply of RA
flags.  We should probably be looking into it as well as we do need a
couple of RA flags for the DNA solution.

The draft seems to be proposing an extended flags option that is in
the typical type-length-value form.  The first 8 flags go into their
regular spot in the RA and flags beyond that go into this new option.
Flags 0-5 are already assigned while 6-7 and those in this new option
are yet to be defined.

I guess some thought needs to be given to how flags 6 and 7 are
assigned, as the use of those flags has less overhead than flags that
need to go into the new option.  I'm not sure how that choice will be
made, or how we weigh up the needs of DNA against any other protocols
that might need new flags as well.

Any thoughts?
Regards,
Brett.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Feb 4, 2007 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: WG Request: Adopt draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt
To: Guilherme Sperb Machado <[email-masked]>
Cc: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]

It's expired. Try
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt

     Brian

On 2007-02-04 06:37, Guilherme Sperb Machado wrote:
> The draft link is not working. How can I read the proposed draft?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Guilherme Sperb Machado
>
> On 2/2/07, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> All,
>>      This is a formal call to request IPv6 WG feedback on adopting the
>> below draft.  The premise of the draft is to expand the flags field that
>> is quickly running out of bits.
>>
>>      Please provide your preference (positive or negative) on having
>> this document become an IPv6 WG document.  Comments on the contents are
>> most welcome as well.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Brian
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt
>> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:50:01 -0400
>> From: [email-masked]
>> Reply-To: [email-masked]
>> To: [email-masked]
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>> directories.
>>
>>
>>         Title           : IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option
>>         Author(s)       : B. Haberman, R. Hinden
>>         Filename        : draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt
>>         Pages           : 7
>>         Date            : 2006-8-1
>>
>> The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery's Router Advertisement message contains
>> an 8-bit field reserved for single-bit flags.  Several protocols have
>> reserved flags in this field and others are preparing to reserve a
>> sufficient number of flags to exhaust the field.  This document
>> defines an option to the Router Advertisement message that expands
>> the available number of flag bits available.
>>
>>
>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:17:24 -0500

Hi Brett,
   I brought up this issue with the IPv6 chairs during IETF66. At that 
time I had requested that bits 6 and 7 be assigned to DNA. I sent this mail

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg06561.html

to the IPv6 mailing list requesting the same. Also I do not see any 
competing documents which require these bits to be assigned to them and 
ahead of us on the standards track.

Cheers
Suresh