Subject: Document Action: 'Problem Statement of Default Address Selection in Multi-prefix Environment: Operational Issues of RFC3484 Default Rules' to Informational RFC

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:11:20 -0700 (PDT)

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Problem Statement of Default Address Selection in Multi-prefix 
   Environment: Operational Issues of RFC3484 Default Rules '
   <draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-09.txt> as an Informational RFC

This document is the product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group. 

The IESG contact persons are Ron Bonica and Dan Romascanu.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-addr-select-ps-09.txt

> Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the
> abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or
> introduction.

One physical network can carry multiple logical networks. Moreover,
we can use multiple physical networks at the same time in a
host. In
that environment, end hosts might have multiple IP addresses and be
required to use them selectively. Without an appropriate source/
destination address selection mechanism, the host will experience
some trouble in communication. RFC 3484 defines both the source and
destination address selection algorithms, but the multi-prefix
environment considered here needs additional rules beyond those of
the default operation. This document describes the possible
problems
that end hosts could encounter in an environment with multiple
logical networks.

> Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is
> worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular
> points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
> rough?

The problem statement and requirements have been thoroughly discussed
and seem to have a reasonably strong consensus. The proposed solution
is not yet agreed to.

> Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the
> protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan
> to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit
> special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that
> resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had
> no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or
> other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of
> a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?

Personnel

Fred Baker is shepard for this document

_______________________________________________
IETF-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce