Subject: Reminder: IMSS Working Group last call on IPv6 over Fibre Channel Draft Ends Monday Nov 24

From: "Elizabeth Rodriguez" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:44:47 -0800

This is a reminder that the FC over IPv6 draft is currently in IMSS working
group last call.  The last call period ends on November 24 at 9pm EST.

The draft may be found at 
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-00.txt

A link to the draft may also be found at the bottom of the IMSS WG home page
at www.ietf.org/html.charters/imss-charter.html.  This page also includes
instructions on subscribing to the mailing list.

If anyone has comments against this draft, please post them to the IMSS
mailing list.  If the comments are only editorial in nature, they may be
posted to the mailing list or send directly to the author with copies to the
chair and technical advisors as indicated below.

The original WG Last Call announcement follows.

Thanks,
Elizabeth Rodriguez
IMSS Chair

Note:  The URLs above have been verified. If the URLs above do not work for
you, make sure your mailer has not split the URL over two lines.  

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
[email-masked]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 8:59 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: [imss] IMSS: Working Group last call on IPv6 over Fibre Channel
Draft

Hello,

I would like to announce the IETF IMSS Working Group last call on the IPv6
over Fibre Channel draft.
The draft may be found at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-
00.txt
The last call period will end at 9pm EST on Monday, November 24, 2003.  

Please address any technical comments to the IMSS mailing list at
[email-masked]. 
Editorial comments may be made directly to the draft author, Claudio
DeSanti, at [email-masked].
Please copy me at [email-masked] and our technical
coordinators for this draft, David Black ([email-masked]) and Margaret
Wasserman ([email-masked]).

Summary:

Draft:  IPv6 over Fibre Channel
Draft URL:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-imss-ipv6-over-fibre-channel-
00.txt
WGLC ends: Monday, November 24, 2003 at 9pm EST
Technical comments to: [email-masked]
Editorial comments to: Claudio DeSanti ([email-masked]), David Black
([email-masked]), Margaret Wasserman ([email-masked]) and
Elizabeth Rodriguez ([email-masked])

Thank you,

Elizabeth Rodriguez
IMSS Chair

IMSS Charter: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/imss-charter.html
To subscribe to the IMSS mailing list, see
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss

_______________________________________________
imss mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/imss

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

---

From: Fred Templin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:11:34 -0800

~64KB MTU L2 media, huh? Sounds interesting.

Has there been any consideration given to L2 bridging
between FiberChannel and other media such as Gbps
and 10/100 Ethernet, or are you expecting everything
between dissimilar media to go through a router?

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]

---

From: Claudio DeSanti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:29:14 -0800

Hi Fred,

the ~64KB MTU comes from RFC 2625 (IPv4 over Fibre Channel), and one of the 
goals of the IPv6 over FC specification is to keep unchanged the 
encapsulation technique between IPv4 and IPv6.

I understand that with IPv6 a bridge has no more the option to fragment a 
too big packet, as in IPv4, but I do not believe this is an issue, because:
- router advertisements may announce a proper MTU over a bridged network;
- current deployments are almost entirely based on routers instead than on 
bridges.

In any case, if the group believes this to be an issue, then we have the 
same issue also for RFC 2467 (Transmission of IPv6 Packets over FDDI 
Networks), where the default MTU is 4352 octets. If it is not a problem 
there, then it is neither a problem here.

Thanks,

                                     Claudio.

At 01:11 PM 11/20/2003 -0800, Fred Templin wrote:
>>[email-masked]. Editorial comments may be made directly to the draft 
>>author, Claudio

---

From: "Chirayu Patel" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:40:55 +0530

On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:29:14 -0800, "Claudio DeSanti"
<[email-masked]> said:

> I understand that with IPv6 a bridge has no more the option to fragment
> a too big packet, as in IPv4, but I do not believe this is an issue,
> because:

ND-proxy draft has the same recommendation for handling MTU within a
subnet comprising of multiple L2-technologies.

You can find the draft at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-01.txt
Section 4.1.3.3 covers processing of RA's.

CP