Transcript PPT Version

IPv6 Node Requirements
draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-04.txt
[email protected]
IETF 57
13 July 2003
1
Major issues
• Issue Tracker at:
• http://danforsberg.info:8080/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements/index
• 14 total issues (one is a duplicate).
• 6 purely editorial (issues 2, 4, 6, 12/13, 15)
• 9 technical issues
2
Path MTU (issues 3, 10)
• 2 related issues:
• Text clarification from Pekka Savola
• Brian Carpenter suggests adding:
• It is expected that most implementations will indeed support this,
although the possible exception cases are sufficient that the used of
"SHOULD" is not justified.
3
IPv6 Addressing Architecture (issues 2, 11)
• Update to current RFC and add clarifying text
4
MLD (Issue 14)
• Multicast Listener Discovery [RFC-2710] MUST be supported by nodes
supporting multicast applications. A primary IPv6 multicast application is
Neighbor Discovery (all those solicited-node mcast addresses must be
joined).
• The last part of the sentence is probably something that should have
been spelled out but was forgotten.. :-)
• One should probably add a short reference to draft-ietf-magma-mldsource-07, which clarifies a bootstrap issue with MLDv1. (Currently in
IESG and nearing completion.)
5
Router Requirements (issue 7)
• I think this document should not document router requirements at all, and
leave that to a separate document. That is, I would suggest that section 9
be removed and put in a separate draft.
6
MIBs (issue 8)
• Network Management, MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for
IPv6 nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the
only possibility to control these hosts.
• What does this mean? Does this specifically mean SNMP (If so say so).
If not, what is the purpose of this sentence? It would basically be saying
"A node MAY support whatever configuration mechanism it supports“
which seems odd to say.
• In a general sense, MIBs SHOULD be supported by nodes that support a
SNMP agent.
• Any MIBs in particular or just whatever the implementor wants? For
example are the MIBs mentioned in 10.1.1 and 10.1.2 SHOULDs or
not?
• -> Remove this sentence & place under support for “IP Forwarding Table
MIB” & “Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)”
7
Normative references (issue 9)
• Generic note: there are normative references to yet unpublished (but some
of them accepted) documents: DHCPv6, MLDv2, MIPv6, RFC1886bis,
RFC2096bis, RFC2011bis.The document cannot be published before all of
these have been published. Depending on the timeline this may or may not
be an issue.
8