From cwxynrcql2@pdfalfsdf.gnway.net Thu Jun 01 09:47:48 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FlnWe-0007tu-9E for MULTI6-ARCHIVE@LISTS.IETF.ORG; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:47:48 -0400 Received: from [221.209.132.122] (helo=pdfalfsdf.gnway.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FlnWc-0003vN-6s for MULTI6-ARCHIVE@LISTS.IETF.ORG; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:47:48 -0400 Received: from oxt2 (unknown [94.124.16.33]) by smtp21 (Coremail) with SMTP id zcomiyN3PXPG5svh.1 for ; Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:47:46 +0800 (CST) X-Originating-IP: [94.124.16.33] Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 21:47:46 +0800 From: =?shift-jis?B?S0VO?= To: Subject: =?shift-jis?B?gqiU5oLql2yCxYK3gUKCxoLJgqmCrZNggqaCyIKtgsSCzYLIguiC3IK5gvGBQg==?= Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="shift-jis" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE Message-ID: <2006060185001.76816@pdfalfsdf.gnway.net> X-Spam-Score: 4.7 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c ICCBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyB XIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXA0KICAuLjouLi46gZkuLiogICAggUAgi02V+4LMl52ReoLMj5eQq4FjjKmC woKvgtyCt4FCICAgICAgICouLoGZOi4uLjouLg0KICAuLoGZOi4uICAgICAgIJG8gsWCvoLfgr6C wYK9lfuI6pN4gqiOjoK1gq2CvoKzgqKBQoFAgUCBQCAgICAgLi46gZkuLg0KICAuLjouOjqBmS4g gUCBQCCBQJJqkKuC4I+XkKuC4JNvmF6Ws5e/g1SDQ4NngsWCt4FCgUCBQIFAgUCBQIFAIDouLjou Lg0KICCBmTo6LiAgICAggUCDj4OTg06DioNig06Tb5hegUGVc5OWl7+L4IFBicuL85C/i4GCyILH gs2BQYFAgUCBQCAuOjqBmQ0KICAuLjqBmS4uKiAgICAgICAgICAgIIFAgXOQ4pHOgsmCoILogtyC uYLxISGBdCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgOoGZLi4qOg0KgUCBQIFAgUCBQIFAgUCBQIFAgUCBQIFA IH5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn5+fn6BQIFAgUCBQA0KICCBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyB XIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXIFcgVyBXA0KgsiC8YLEgqKCpIOB gVuDi4KqguaCrZPNgquC3IK3gqqBQZZ7k5aCxYK1guWCpIKpgUINCpHMjLGO5o3egrWCxIKpgueW e5OWgsmIwJBTgsiDVINDg2eCvoKvgvCM9opKgrWCxIKigtyCt4FCRC1wYXJhgsWCt4FCDQqBQIFA gUCBQIFAgUCBQIFAgUCBQIFADQqBQIFAgUBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNoaW5hbWVjcy5uZXQvZmFu From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Tue Jun 06 00:07:37 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnSqv-0001s1-Qd for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:07:37 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnSqt-0004xI-HO for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:07:37 -0400 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnSot-000Gk1-3G for multi6-data@psg.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:05:31 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_WHOIS_INVALID autolearn=no version=3.1.1 Received: from [61.144.161.55] (helo=huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnSop-000Gjc-VV for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 04:05:28 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J0F00IND7QHNU@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:13:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J0F00AD07QH4U@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:13:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from z52447 ([10.164.5.19]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0J0F00FVM7D2OW@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:05:35 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:04:23 +0800 From: Lawrence Zou Subject: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 To: Haibo.WEN@alcatel-sbell.com.cn Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <000401c6891e$4ec8e250$1305a40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 hi,wen: i have read you draft. Although there are some strong technical points in this document, i still think there are some big problem: 1. I noticed that in all 3 Scenarios, the RS message must include ISP name sub-option,so,is it a "MUST" sub-optinon that be include in the Multi-homing Information option? if it is true,what will it happen if the host don't know the name of the ISP? I think in the Scenarios of stateless addres autoconfigue, it is not necessary for host to know the topology of the network and the name of the ISP. in your draft ,all hosts know clearly which ISP they belong to ,I think we can distinguish them using some kinds of VLAN techonoly. 2.In Scenario 3,you mention the equipment of "layer2 CPE ".so what the difference is that with "layer3 CPE "? In my understand ,the layer2 CPE is a layer2 equipmnet ,so in the section 3.3 Step (b) : Base on the information in Multi-homing Information option , layer 2 access node can forward this RS to the correct edge router of the desired ISP without sending it to the router that will not respond this RS. can layer2 equipment do this kind of thing? From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Tue Jun 06 03:13:28 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnVkl-0005ZK-Vl for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:13:27 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnVkk-0000v8-I6 for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 03:13:27 -0400 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnVj4-000HXi-39 for multi6-data@psg.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:11:42 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_WHOIS_INVALID autolearn=no version=3.1.1 Received: from [61.144.161.53] (helo=huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnViy-000HXQ-Hk for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 07:11:36 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J0F008VGFX4DE@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:10:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J0F00KRPFX4FG@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:10:16 +0800 (CST) Received: from z52447 ([10.164.5.19]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0J0F001TVGC5JL@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:19:20 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:08:53 +0800 From: Lawrence Zou Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 In-reply-to: <9570C1261494D54D9D3115BC2C83429A02277C56@asbmail2.sbell.com.cn> To: 'CTO WEN Haibo' Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org, shim6@psg.com Message-id: <000801c68938$1231df30$1305a40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b1c41982e167b872076d0018e4e1dc3c sorry,I am confused by your draft. in section 1 you mentioned the purpose of your idear is "How to help host implement=20 exit router selection and the associated prefix or address selection " in my understand , your prblem is the host have got several prefix or addresses from different routers,when the host have some data to send to a destination, it must choose a source address and a exit router. is that true? for this purpose ,the host send RS with the multihome-option that carry some information such as ISP name ,then the corresponding exit router response it wiht RA. but I think if the host have know which ISP it will got it's service(explicit by ISP name),that also mean the host have already selected one exit router and the corresponding source address. maybe i have misunderstand the procedure.can you explain it more explicit ?=20 thanks=20 Best regards Lawrence >-----Original Message----- >From: CTO WEN Haibo [mailto:Haibo.WEN@alcatel-sbell.com.cn]=20 >Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 1:44 PM >To: Lawrence Zou >Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org; shim6@psg.com >Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 > > >hi Lawrence, > >I'm glad to receive your comments. > >I can explain to you one by one. > >1. The secnarios in the draft are using the ISP name=20 >sub-option. It does not=20 >mean that it's a "MUST" sub-option in the multi-homing=20 >information option for=20 >RS message (and other sub-option can be used if needed). Of=20 >course, if we want to solve the problem described in the=20 >charter of shim6 w.g., it is a "MUST" sub-option for RA=20 >message. Without this information along with the Prefix=20 >Information option, host doesn't know how to choose the=20 >appropriate prefix and=20 >the associated exit router.=20 >I think multi-homing environment doesn't mean that some hosts=20 >in a multi- home site just in the VLAN connected to a=20 >specified ISP. All the hosts in the=20 >multihome site have been connected to all the exit routers=20 >that belongs to=20 >different ISP. That is, the host can obtain all the periodical=20 >RA messages from different routers. Our goal is to solve=20 >prefix selection and exit router selection in this environment. > >2. First, that's just an example of how to use multi-homing=20 >option in access network. It can also be used in LAN with=20 >multiple exit routers. The layer2 access node I mean in this=20 >example is not just a pure layer2 devices. It can snoop some=20 >special layer3 packets, such as RS/RA messages, then it can=20 >forward the RS to the correct router without flooding it to=20 >other parts of=20 >access netework.=20 >If the access node doesn't have this ability, RS can be sent=20 >to all routers, only the corresponding will respond this RS=20 >message. This will not add any bad=20 >impact. > >Thanks. > >Best regards, > >Haibo > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lawrence Zou [mailto:zou.rong@huawei.com] >> Sent: 2006=C4=EA6=D4=C26=C8=D5 12:04 >> To: CTO WEN Haibo >> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 >>=20 >>=20 >> hi,wen: >>=20 >> i have read you draft. Although there are some strong=20 >technical=20 >> points in this document, i still think there are some big problem: >>=20 >> 1. I noticed that in all 3 Scenarios, the RS message must=20 >include ISP=20 >> name sub-option,so,is it a "MUST" sub-optinon that be=20 >include in the=20 >> Multi-homing Information option? if it is true,what will it=20 >happen if=20 >> the host don't know the name of the ISP? I think in the Scenarios of=20 >> stateless addres autoconfigue, it is not necessary for host to know=20 >> the topology of the network and the name of the ISP. >> in your draft ,all hosts know clearly which ISP they belong=20 >> to ,I think >> we can distinguish them using some kinds of VLAN techonoly. >>=20 >> 2.In Scenario 3,you mention the equipment of "layer2 CPE=20 >".so what the=20 >> difference is that with "layer3 CPE "? In my understand ,the layer2=20 >> CPE is a layer2 equipmnet ,so in the section 3.3 >> Step (b) : Base on the information in Multi-homing=20 >> Information option >> , layer 2 access node can forward this RS to=20 >the correct >> edge router of the desired ISP without sending=20 >> it to the=20 >> router that will not respond this RS.=09 >>=20 >> can layer2 equipment do this kind of thing?=09 >> =20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 > From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Tue Jun 06 05:37:28 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnY08-0001mN-OE for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:37:28 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnY07-00083b-Sz for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:37:28 -0400 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnXyu-000Ec7-IL for multi6-data@psg.com; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:36:12 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_WHOIS_INVALID autolearn=no version=3.1.1 Received: from [61.144.161.54] (helo=huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnXym-000Ebc-Om for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 09:36:09 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J0F006B7N96N6@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:48:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J0F000M5N96XM@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:48:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from z52447 ([10.164.5.19]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0J0F0024CN0CNR@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:43:32 +0800 (CST) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:32:58 +0800 From: Lawrence Zou Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 In-reply-to: <9570C1261494D54D9D3115BC2C83429A02277C57@asbmail2.sbell.com.cn> To: 'CTO WEN Haibo' Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org, shim6@psg.com Message-id: <000901c6894c$35922d90$1305a40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a743e34ab8eb08259de9a7307caed594 >-----Original Message----- >From: CTO WEN Haibo [mailto:Haibo.WEN@alcatel-sbell.com.cn]=20 >Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 4:54 PM >To: Lawrence Zou >Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org; shim6@psg.com >Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 > > >Lawrence, > >In current IPv6 multihoming site, each hosts in this site can=20 >have multiple prefixes from different exit routers. It cannot=20 >identify which ISP assignes=20 >the exact prefix, because there is no extra information in=20 >prefix information option. > >The multi-homing information defined in this draft is used=20 >along with prefix information option. It will provide extra=20 >information for host to do selection. Host only selects the=20 >prefix from the desired ISP to form its IPv6 address, of=20 >course, the corresponding exit router will be cached. Other=20 >prefixes from other routers will not be used to form IP=20 >address. For example, STB may only want services from IPTV=20 >service provider. Other prefixes from other service providers=20 >are useless for itself. yes,i think you point out the most important thing:the host only form IP adress it will use it . so i guess that: 1)ISP1 and ISP2 send RA with prefix information and multi-homing information. 2)if host can decide whitch ISP it will select,for example ,it select ISP1,the host will form address with the prefix in the RA of ISP1 and ignore the RA of ISP2. > >Host knows which ISP it will got its service, and it also=20 >knows its exit router is the edge router of the desired ISP.=20 >But it doesn't know the network topology, it doesn't know the=20 >exact exit router either, unless multi-homing informaiton=20 >option is used along the prefix information option. i do not agree with this point of "Host knows which ISP it will got its service" in the scenario=20 of stateless address auto-configure,in the SAAC,we should assume that No manual configuration=20 of individual machines before connecting them to the network, but if you do not do some manual configuration, how can you know which ISP the host will got its service?One available method the host can do this is it ask "who can provide the service of......?" and if someone anwer it "i can do it ",then the host select this ISP. > >Best regards, > >Haibo > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lawrence Zou [mailto:zou.rong@huawei.com] >> Sent: 2006=C4=EA6=D4=C26=C8=D5 15:09 >> To: CTO WEN Haibo >> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org; shim6@psg.com >> Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 >>=20 >>=20 >> sorry,I am confused by your draft. >>=20 >> in section 1 you mentioned the purpose of your idear is =20 >"How to help=20 >> host implement >> exit router selection and the associated prefix or address >> selection >> " >>=20 >> in my understand , >> your prblem is the host have got several prefix or addresses from=20 >> different routers,when the host have some data to send to a=20 >> destination, it must choose a source address and a exit router. is=20 >> that true? >>=20 >> for this purpose ,the host send RS with the multihome-option >> that carry >> some information such as ISP name ,then the corresponding=20 >exit router >> response it wiht RA. >>=20 >> but I think if the host have know which ISP it will got it's=20 >> service(explicit by ISP name),that also mean the host have already=20 >> selected one exit router and the corresponding source address. >>=20 >> maybe i have misunderstand the procedure.can you explain it more=20 >> explicit ? >>=20 >> thanks >>=20 >> Best regards >>=20 >> Lawrence >>=20 >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: CTO WEN Haibo [mailto:Haibo.WEN@alcatel-sbell.com.cn] >> >Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 1:44 PM >> >To: Lawrence Zou >> >Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org; shim6@psg.com >> >Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 >> > >> > >> >hi Lawrence, >> > >> >I'm glad to receive your comments. >> > >> >I can explain to you one by one. >> > >> >1. The secnarios in the draft are using the ISP name >> >sub-option. It does not=20 >> >mean that it's a "MUST" sub-option in the multi-homing=20 >> >information option for=20 >> >RS message (and other sub-option can be used if needed). Of=20 >> >course, if we want to solve the problem described in the=20 >> >charter of shim6 w.g., it is a "MUST" sub-option for RA=20 >> >message. Without this information along with the Prefix=20 >> >Information option, host doesn't know how to choose the=20 >> >appropriate prefix and=20 >> >the associated exit router.=20 >> >I think multi-homing environment doesn't mean that some hosts=20 >> >in a multi- home site just in the VLAN connected to a=20 >> >specified ISP. All the hosts in the=20 >> >multihome site have been connected to all the exit routers=20 >> >that belongs to=20 >> >different ISP. That is, the host can obtain all the periodical=20 >> >RA messages from different routers. Our goal is to solve=20 >> >prefix selection and exit router selection in this environment. >> > >> >2. First, that's just an example of how to use multi-homing >> >option in access network. It can also be used in LAN with=20 >> >multiple exit routers. The layer2 access node I mean in this=20 >> >example is not just a pure layer2 devices. It can snoop some=20 >> >special layer3 packets, such as RS/RA messages, then it can=20 >> >forward the RS to the correct router without flooding it to=20 >> >other parts of=20 >> >access netework.=20 >> >If the access node doesn't have this ability, RS can be sent=20 >> >to all routers, only the corresponding will respond this RS=20 >> >message. This will not add any bad=20 >> >impact. >> > >> >Thanks. >> > >> >Best regards, >> > >> >Haibo >> > >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Lawrence Zou [mailto:zou.rong@huawei.com] >> >> Sent: 2006=C4=EA6=D4=C26=C8=D5 12:04 >> >> To: CTO WEN Haibo >> >> Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org >> >> Subject: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 >> >>=20 >> >>=20 >> >> hi,wen: >> >>=20 >> >> i have read you draft. Although there are some strong >> >technical >> >> points in this document, i still think there are some=20 >big problem: >> >>=20 >> >> 1. I noticed that in all 3 Scenarios, the RS message must >> >include ISP >> >> name sub-option,so,is it a "MUST" sub-optinon that be >> >include in the >> >> Multi-homing Information option? if it is true,what will it >> >happen if >> >> the host don't know the name of the ISP? I think in the >> Scenarios of >> >> stateless addres autoconfigue, it is not necessary for >> host to know >> >> the topology of the network and the name of the ISP. >> >> in your draft ,all hosts know clearly which ISP they belong >> >> to ,I think >> >> we can distinguish them using some kinds of VLAN techonoly. >> >>=20 >> >> 2.In Scenario 3,you mention the equipment of "layer2 CPE >> >".so what the >> >> difference is that with "layer3 CPE "? In my understand >> ,the layer2 >> >> CPE is a layer2 equipmnet ,so in the section 3.3 >> >> Step (b) : Base on the information in Multi-homing >> >> Information option >> >> , layer 2 access node can forward this RS to=20 >> >the correct >> >> edge router of the desired ISP without sending >> >> it to the=20 >> >> router that will not respond this RS.=09 >> >>=20 >> >> can layer2 equipment do this kind of thing?=09 >> >> =20 >> >>=20 >> >>=20 >> >>=20 >> > >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 > From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Tue Jun 06 20:50:23 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnmFb-0008UJ-UN for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:50:23 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnmFZ-0006LG-LO for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 20:50:23 -0400 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnmDh-000J24-PL for multi6-data@psg.com; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:48:25 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.1 Received: from [213.204.46.37] (helo=lemland.kurtis.pp.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnmDg-000J1n-8y for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 00:48:24 +0000 Received: from [192.168.7.103] (streamline116.sjccnet.com [207.87.51.116]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by lemland.kurtis.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0946B78C24; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 02:48:19 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <000401c6891e$4ec8e250$1305a40a@china.huawei.com> References: <000401c6891e$4ec8e250$1305a40a@china.huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750) X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: Haibo.WEN@alcatel-sbell.com.cn, multi6@ops.ietf.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist Subject: Re: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 02:49:38 +0200 To: Lawrence Zou X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.750) Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9ed51c9d1356100bce94f1ae4ec616a9 I'd like to point out that the multi6 WG has completed it's work and should be closed down - and as soon as that happens I will close this mailinglist. - kurtis - On 6 jun 2006, at 06.04, Lawrence Zou wrote: > hi,wen: > > i have read you draft. Although there are some strong technical > points in this document, i still think there are some big problem: > > 1. I noticed that in all 3 Scenarios, the RS message must include ISP > name sub-option,so,is it a "MUST" sub-optinon that be include in the > Multi-homing Information option? if it is true,what will it happen if > the host don't know the name of the ISP? I think in the Scenarios of > stateless > addres autoconfigue, it is not necessary for host to know the topology > of the network and the name of the ISP. > in your draft ,all hosts know clearly which ISP they belong to ,I > think > we can distinguish them using some kinds of VLAN techonoly. > > 2.In Scenario 3,you mention the equipment of "layer2 CPE ".so what the > difference is that with "layer3 CPE "? In my understand ,the layer2 > CPE > is a layer2 equipmnet ,so in the section 3.3 > Step (b) : Base on the information in Multi-homing Information > option > , layer 2 access node can forward this RS to the correct > edge router of the desired ISP without sending it to the > router that will not respond this RS. > > can layer2 equipment do this kind of thing? > > > > From owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Tue Jun 06 23:20:00 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnoaO-000100-QV for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:20:00 -0400 Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FnoaM-0004d3-Gg for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:20:00 -0400 Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnoZU-00058j-7t for multi6-data@psg.com; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 03:19:04 +0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on psg.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_WHOIS_INVALID autolearn=no version=3.1.1 Received: from [61.144.161.55] (helo=huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.60 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1FnoZT-00058R-4v for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 03:19:03 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J0H0030D0A5KM@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:27:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.18]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0J0H009HU0A4KB@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:27:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from z52447 ([10.164.5.19]) by szxml03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0J0G001SUZWWON@szxml03-in.huawei.com> for multi6@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:19:47 +0800 (CST) Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 11:18:39 +0800 From: Lawrence Zou Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 In-reply-to: <9570C1261494D54D9D3115BC2C83429A010727E4@asbmail2.sbell.com.cn> To: 'CTO WEN Haibo' , 'Kurt Erik Lindqvist' Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org Message-id: <000a01c689e1$1255fd30$1305a40a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8 I am not sure the topic in your document is in the domain of shim6,in fact ,I think it will be bettter to discuss in IPV6 WG because you want to add option in RS/RA message. >-----Original Message----- >From: CTO WEN Haibo [mailto:Haibo.WEN@alcatel-sbell.com.cn]=20 >Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:34 AM >To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist; Lawrence Zou >Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org >Subject: RE: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 > > >Kurtis, > >Thank you for your reminder. >I have subscribed the shim6 WG, and also forwarded the=20 >discussion in that group. > >Lawrence, maybe you should subscribe shim6 WG, too. > >Best regards, > >-Haibo > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist [mailto:kurtis@kurtis.pp.se] >> Sent: 2006=C4=EA6=D4=C27=C8=D5 08:50 >> To: Lawrence Zou >> Cc: CTO WEN Haibo; multi6@ops.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: questions about draft-wen-ipv6-rsra-opt-multihoming-00 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> I'd like to point out that the multi6 WG has completed it's work and >> should be closed down - and as soon as that happens I will=20 >> close this =20 >> mailinglist. >>=20 >> - kurtis - >>=20 >> On 6 jun 2006, at 06.04, Lawrence Zou wrote: >>=20 >> > hi,wen: >> > >> > i have read you draft. Although there are some strong >> technical >> > points in this document, i still think there are some big problem: >> > >> > 1. I noticed that in all 3 Scenarios, the RS message must >> include ISP >> > name sub-option,so,is it a "MUST" sub-optinon that be >> include in the >> > Multi-homing Information option? if it is true,what will it >> happen if >> > the host don't know the name of the ISP? I think in the=20 >Scenarios of=20 >> > stateless addres autoconfigue, it is not necessary for host to know >> the topology >> > of the network and the name of the ISP. >> > in your draft ,all hosts know clearly which ISP they belong to ,I >> > think >> > we can distinguish them using some kinds of VLAN techonoly. >> > >> > 2.In Scenario 3,you mention the equipment of "layer2 CPE >> ".so what the >> > difference is that with "layer3 CPE "? In my understand >> ,the layer2 >> > CPE >> > is a layer2 equipmnet ,so in the section 3.3 >> > Step (b) : Base on the information in Multi-homing Information >> > option >> > , layer 2 access node can forward this RS to=20 >> the correct >> > edge router of the desired ISP without >> sending it to the >> > router that will not respond this RS.=09 >> > >> > can layer2 equipment do this kind of thing?=09 >> > >> > >> > >> > >>=20 >>=20 > From nfikupbo@mercury.livedoor.com Sun Jun 11 13:02:01 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpTK5-0001z1-Rb for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:02:01 -0400 Received: from [221.209.133.182] (helo=lists.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpTK1-00017Z-W5 for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:02:01 -0400 To: From: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCNF9AbhsoQg==?= Subject: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCIXxKfjMoTU0kSCROJSIlSSVsJTk4cjQ5JEskRCQkJEYbKEI=?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Content-Type:text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.3 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25 度々のご連絡になり、大変申し訳ございません。 担当の岸川でございます。 朋絵様から連絡先の変更があったとのことです。 急な変更で行き違いになってはいけないということで、 すぐにご連絡させて頂きました。 こちらでご確認下さい。 http://www.h2-plus.net/care 直接アド交換も希望させているようですので、詳しくは ご本人とお話いただければと思います。 宜しくお願い致します。 From nfikupbo@mercury.livedoor.com Sun Jun 11 18:37:00 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpYYG-0005bt-6y for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:37:00 -0400 Received: from [221.209.128.114] (helo=lists.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FpYT6-0005Ur-E7 for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Sun, 11 Jun 2006 18:31:45 -0400 To: From: =?iso-2022-jp?B?eXVra28=?= Subject: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCJWEhPCVrJCIkaiQsJEghIxsoQg==?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Content-Type:text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 1.2 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 6d62ab47271805379d7172ee693a45db メールありがと。昨日は会えたからスッゴク楽しかったよ〜。 あんなにサッカー詳しい人、初めて、かなり尊敬しちゃうし、 色々と教えて欲しいな。 From brown_4_bbc@yahoo.co.jp Sat Jun 17 13:00:18 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fre9i-0003Cs-CM for multi6-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:00:18 -0400 Received: from [221.122.177.169] (helo=ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fre9f-0003c6-Tz for multi6-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Jun 2006 13:00:18 -0400 To: From: =?iso-2022-jp?B?cnVuYQ==?= Subject: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCQmdKUSQqQlQkPyQ7JCQkPyQ3JF4kNyQ/GyhC?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Content-Type:text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.6 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d 高級婦人との無料の出会いを提供してます。 女性は登録料3万円、男性は無料となってますので、真剣な女性し かおりません。 すべてのセレブが顔画像を添えてメルアドも載せてお待ちです。 お金はあるが愛に恵まれない女性達を身体で癒してあげてください。 月1〜3回のデートで月30の逆サポが最低限のラインなので、 女性によってはそれ以上の逆サポが期待できますよ(o^-') 　 　http://rrnj.com?plll さらに、真剣な交際を希望される方のために、無料で貴方のお住ま いの近くの女性セレブを無料で検索する新しいご紹介サービスを提 供いたします。 　 　http://rrnj.com?plll 今なら会員費・年会費等一切無料！ さらに6,500円分の無料ポイントをプレゼント！ お手数ですが配信拒否な方はこちらまでお願いします。 nomal@rrnj.com From arisa@072.com Fri Jun 30 05:45:25 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwFYz-000557-1a for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 05:45:25 -0400 Received: from [218.15.235.46] (helo=mail.0451.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwFYx-0004lJ-3x for multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 05:45:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:45:43 -0480 From: "Effie Shipley" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.0) UNREG / 77YIB4V52SDZ8OWANJ Reply-To: "Effie Shipley" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <20661628.20060630094543@072.com> To: multi6-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: :), Non-islamic MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 4.4 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Even if you have no erectin problems SOFT CIAzLIS would help you to make BETTER SE X MORE OFTEN! and to bring unimagnable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pil under your tongue and get ready for action in 15 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this medic ation were able to have PERFECT ER ECTI ON during 36 hours! VISIT US, AND GET OUR SPECIAL 70% DISC OUNT OFER! http://A5KB1P.rubyberry.com ========== flock around the piers and fishing boats, diving on scraps of fish and brains were functioning God forbid you should stick your head between two the sand, dragging his leftwing,to collapse at Jonathan's feet. "Help me," anyway, to tell the truth, people drop like flies in the special suits too. At last he turned that speed straight up into a long vertical The houses in the Plague Quarter were chipped and dead. How ever, the There was a great clamor of squawks and screes from the crowd when first know which way to look, at the field or at them. And then I forgot about