Subject: WG Request: Adopt draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:40:53 -0500

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

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <[email-masked]>

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Guilherme Sperb Machado" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 03:37:06 -0200

The draft link is not working. How can I read the proposed draft?

Thanks in advance,
Guilherme Sperb Machado

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2007 11:48:03 +0100

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

     Brian

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:56:32 +0100

Brian Haberman 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.

Hi, I'm new to the document/activity.  It doesn't seem to be listed in
the Charter but seems to me to be the only proposal of RA option
extensions in this way.

I'm positive about having such document as a WG item.

The flags in RA are indeed almost running out, only one left.  The
published literature is full with extensions in RA.

The encoding in the draft looks meaningful with respect to RFC2461
(length is 1 as 2461 expects).

Nits: there may be some need to identify better how this RA option must
precede all the other RA options (SLLAO, MTU, PI).  For example, draft
says the option must be the first option after the 'base NDP' header,
but there's no such thing as 'base NDP' header - one is tempted to think
'base IPv6 header'?  I think it's meant 'RA message header'?  Another
example, 2461 says an non-understood option should be dropped and
discontinue message processing, and 'RA options' will be non-understood
for a while by implementations, so maybe just request drop the option
but continue processing.

Question: if one needs to use this new option between two routers to let
each other know that the prefixes advertised _could_ be installed in the
routing table - would this option encoding be appropriate?

Alex

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:09:06 -0500

Hi Brian,
   I fully support this draft becoming a WG document.

Cheers
Suresh

Brian Haberman wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:34:55 +0100

> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt

The draft describes an option to be included in the RA.  However,
section 4 calls it a "NDP Expansion Option", meaning this option could
be included in - other than RA - NDP messages(?)

One would clarify that this Flags Expansion Option is to be used only
preceded by the RA header (Type 134).

At least because the necessity of this new option with flags comes
exclusively from the lack of flag space in RA, not in NS for example.

No?

Alex

>> Thanks in advance, Guilherme Sperb Machado
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: 
>>> <[email-masked]>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email-masked] 
>>> Administrative Requests: 
>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
>>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email-masked] Administrative 
>> Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email-masked] Administrative 
> Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 11:58:28 -0500

> be included in - other than RA - NDP messages(?)

I suppose it could but the context is lost given that the IANA registry
starts with the flag bits already defined in the RA header.

> exclusively from the lack of flag space in RA, not in NS for example.

That is true.  We can certainly incorporate text to make that explicit.

Regards,
Brian