Subject: Re: IPv6 MIBs comments/questions [2nd attempt]

From: Steve Deering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:06:16 -0700

Dario,

I don't know if you received private answers to your MIB questions,
but in case not, here are answers to a few of your points (from someone
who knows about the IPv6 protocol but nothing about the IPv6 MIBs):

At 10:54 AM +0100 5/24/01, Dario Accornero wrote:
>Section 4 Page 7
>ipv6InterfaceEffectiveMtu: I assume the MTU is related to the whole
>packet, and not just the payload, but I would like to make sure.

In the IP world, MTU always refers to the maximum IP packet size
including the IP header but excluding any lower-layer headers.

>Section 4 Page 9
>ipv6InterfaceIdentifierLength: The reason for the existence of this
>field should be clearly stated, e.g. in what case could we have an
>interface identifier length different from 64 bits?
>I suggest that we get rid of this object as it doesn't seem useful.

Most but not all IPv6 unicast addresses have a 64-bit Interface ID
field.  In particular, addresses starting with the bit pattern 000
are not required to have 64-bit IID fields.  Examples are the
embedded NSAP address format [RFC-1888] and IPv4-compatible IPv6
addresses.

>Section 4 Page 17
>ipAddressPrefixOrigin: Besides DHCP and router advertisements,
>are there any plans to include other possible sources?
>An example would be AAA: should we include this in "other(1)"?
>Could anyone provide another example of the wellknown origin for
>IPv6 prefixes? The only available example is for IPv4 autoconfig.

Perhaps "manual-config"?

Steve

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------