Subject: RE: MIPv6 and ND value changes

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 23:51:33 -0500

Erik,

> > Come on.  You can't implement or understand MIPv6 if you 
> don't have ND 
> > down. It is not even possible. The engineers in MIPv6 are clearly 
> > qualified to work to enhance ND.
> 
> I think I can implement MIPv6 just fine without section 7.5, 
> 7.6, and 7.7 in the MIPv6 draft. After all, I'll have 149-3 
> pages to implement.

Missed my point.  You can't implement part of ND for a feature like
MIPv6.  You have to understand ND as a software engineer.  

> 
> Having those sections separate makes it easier to add more 
> ND optimizations for Mobile IPv6 as we learn more.
> I don't want people that work out e.g. an optimistic DAD 
> scheme to have to stick that into the MIPv6 document just 
> because the MIPv6 document talks about DAD.

I don't think they should put it in MIPv6 either.  It will be another
draft and PANA could be another one etc etc etc.  Each working group or
each engineer will suggest what they need within ND architecture.
That's how we build ND and why we moved it to IP layer in the first
place.

But I agree we need to watch it at the IESG layer.  But MIPv6 has been
thoroughly understood and unless clear technical problems can be stated
in the interest of time-to-market in this IETF it should be let go for
this effort.  

But building an ND Technical Directorate to assist the IESG Layer could
be done for DAD, PANA, and other ND fruits to verify they are not
insane.

This approach gets MIPv6 to PS.

The ND Directorate is formed and if MIPv6 is truly bogus then it is only
PS we just fix it or change how we do it.

I think it is prudent in our community to demonstrate as a standards
body we still understand why we are here and that is to produce good
specs and ship them.  MIPv6 Draft 19 is in fact that and we should move
on.

> 
> > I don't believe moving it to separate spec will make it more 
> > implementable at all.  MIPv6 is no longer a MUST.
> 
> I don't understand your point. This issue is not about 
> implementing the 146 pages in routers; the issue is to get 
> routers to implement the 3 pages of ND changes that improve 
> the performance of movement detection.

My point was that there were MUSTs taken out in Draft 19 but not these I
understand.  Any router or host or client that wants or sees a need to
do MIPv6 is fine with Draft 19 and if they are not building Mobile IPv6
products they should not care.

/jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:25:08 +0100 (CET)

> Missed my point.  You can't implement part of ND for a feature like MIPv6.
> You have to understand ND as a software engineer.  

Understood. But there are different boxes that need to implement different
things.

Home agents need to implement the 'H' bit in the RA and the 'R' bit in
the prefix info option in order to support HA discovery, etc.
And MNs need the RS changes for faster movement detection, etc.

And the key thing in my opinion is that the (access) routers need to
implement the faster RA and the advertisement interval option.
Thus the folks that implement routers need to implement all of ND
(as software engineers) but they probably don't need all of the MIPv6
extensions to ND.

  Erik