Subject: [mif] Advancement of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option?

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:53:59 +0100

Hello,

I wonder what is the advancement direction about of
draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option.

I remember an advantageous voting procedure in Atlanta, and I hoped to
see confirmation on the email list if necessary.

That voting and its confirmation could help close many of the raised
issues, right?

Tickets are at:
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/report/1

Regards,

Alex

---

From: Ivo Sedlacek <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 15:30:31 +0000

Hello,

can you please also correct the errors identified in the attached mail?

Kind regards

Ivo Sedlacek 

This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: 3. února 2013 19:54
To: mif
Subject: [mif] Advancement of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option?

Hello,

I wonder what is the advancement direction about of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option.

I remember an advantageous voting procedure in Atlanta, and I hoped to see confirmation on the email list if necessary.

That voting and its confirmation could help close many of the raised issues, right?

Tickets are at:

Regards,

Alex
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif

Subject: [mif] Question to draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-05
From: Ivo Sedlacek <[email-masked]>
To: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:34:23 +0000
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>

Hello,

draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-05 states in section 7.1:

   Metric field (available in previous version of this draft) has been

   replaced with 2-bit preference field that is in line with RIO

   information.

Issue1:

the section 4 states:

   In terms of the high level operation of the solution defined in this
   draft, a DHCPv6 client interested in obtaining routing information
   request the route options using the DHCPv6 Option Request Option
   (ORO) sent to a server.  A Server, when configured to do so, provides
   the requested route information as part of a nested options structure
   covering; the next-hop address; the destination prefix; >>the route
   metric<<; any additional options applicable to the destination or next-
   hop.

Given the statement in section 7.1, is "the route metric" above correct or is it an obsolete text?

Issue2:

section 5.2 states:

....

      0                   1                   2                   3
      0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |       OPTION_RT_PREFIX        |          option-len           |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                         Route lifetime                        |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     | Prefix-Length |Resvd|Prf|Resvd|                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
     |                            Prefix                             |
     |                          (up to 16 octets)                    |
     |                                                               |
     |                               +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
     |                               |                               |
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+                               |
     .                                                               .
     .                         RT_PREFIX sub-options                 .
     .                                                               .
     +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

                   Figure 3: Route Prefix Option Format

....

   Metric:   Route Metric. 8-bit signed integer.  The Route Metric
             indicates whether to prefer the next hop associated with
             this prefix over others, when multiple identical prefixes
             (for different next hops) have been received.

....

There is no "Metric" field shown in the Figure 3.

Thanks for clarification.

Kind regards

Description: Description: line

IVO SEDLACEK

Ericsson
Mobile +420 608 234 709
[email-masked]
www.ericsson.com

Description: Description: http://www.ericsson.com/<http://www.ericsson.com/>

This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer<http://www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:44:20 +0100

Ivo,

If I understand correctly, in that email you point to an incoherency
about the 'Metric' field.  You name them Issue1 and Issue2.  Issue1
suggests there may be some obsolete text in the draft, whereas Issue2
points to the absence of Metric field in a figure whose text talks Metric.

I also consider these two to be issues.

I opened a ticket about it.

But.  Do you think other resolution about this Metric should be suggested?

How would you like to see these Metric issues fixed?

Thanks for pointing to this issue.

Alex

Le 07/02/2013 16:30, Ivo Sedlacek a écrit :
> This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on
> the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu Sent:
> 3. února 2013 19:54 To: mif Subject: [mif] Advancement of
> draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option?
>
> Hello,
>
> I remember an advantageous voting procedure in Atlanta, and I hoped
> to see confirmation on the email list if necessary.
>
> Tickets are at: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/report/1
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex _______________________________________________ mif mailing
> list [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>

---

From: Ivo Sedlacek <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:52:52 +0000

Hello,

I do not have a preference on a solution. 

However, I noticed that section 7.1 states:
----------------------------
   Metric field (available in previous version of this draft) has been
   replaced with 2-bit preference field that is in line with RIO
   information.
----------------------------

If so, it would be sufficient for me to remove any text referring to the Metric.

Sorry for later answer.

Kind regards

Ivo Sedlacek

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 7. února 2013 18:44
To: Ivo Sedlacek
Cc: mif
Subject: Re: [mif] Advancement of draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option?

Ivo,

If I understand correctly, in that email you point to an incoherency about the 'Metric' field.  You name them Issue1 and Issue2.  Issue1 suggests there may be some obsolete text in the draft, whereas Issue2 points to the absence of Metric field in a figure whose text talks Metric.

Alex

Le 07/02/2013 16:30, Ivo Sedlacek a écrit :
> Alex _______________________________________________ mif mailing list 
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
>