[DNA] Re: RA Options draft - draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt

[Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>]

Hi Brett,
   I brought up this issue with the IPv6 chairs during IETF66. At that 
time I had requested that bits 6 and 7 be assigned to DNA. I sent this mail

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg06561.html

to the IPv6 mailing list requesting the same. Also I do not see any 
competing documents which require these bits to be assigned to them and 
ahead of us on the standards track.

Cheers
Suresh

Brett Pentland wrote:
> Hi DNA folks,
> 
> Sorry if this has already been mentioned ( I missed a few days of list
> activity, if any, and there doesn't seem to be a February archive yet
> ).
> 
> The IPv6 WG may be considering this draft (see the email thread below
> from the IPv6 WG) for a way to deal with the dwindling supply of RA
> flags.  We should probably be looking into it as well as we do need a
> couple of RA flags for the DNA solution.
> 
> The draft seems to be proposing an extended flags option that is in
> the typical type-length-value form.  The first 8 flags go into their
> regular spot in the RA and flags beyond that go into this new option.
> Flags 0-5 are already assigned while 6-7 and those in this new option
> are yet to be defined.
> 
> I guess some thought needs to be given to how flags 6 and 7 are
> assigned, as the use of those flags has less overhead than flags that
> need to go into the new option.  I'm not sure how that choice will be
> made, or how we weigh up the needs of DNA against any other protocols
> that might need new flags as well.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> Regards,
> Brett.
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>
> Date: Feb 4, 2007 9:48 PM
> Subject: Re: WG Request: Adopt draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt
> To: Guilherme Sperb Machado <gsmachado@gmail.com>
> Cc: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>, ipv6@ietf.org
> 
> 
> It's expired. Try
> http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt
> 
>     Brian
> 
> On 2007-02-04 06:37, Guilherme Sperb Machado wrote:
>> The draft link is not working. How can I read the proposed draft?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Guilherme Sperb Machado
>>
>> On 2/2/07, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> wrote:
>>> All,
>>>      This is a formal call to request IPv6 WG feedback on adopting the
>>> below draft.  The premise of the draft is to expand the flags field that
>>> is quickly running out of bits.
>>>
>>>      Please provide your preference (positive or negative) on having
>>> this document become an IPv6 WG document.  Comments on the contents are
>>> most welcome as well.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Brian
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt
>>> Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:50:01 -0400
>>> From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org
>>> Reply-To: internet-drafts@ietf.org
>>> To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Title           : IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option
>>>         Author(s)       : B. Haberman, R. Hinden
>>>         Filename        : draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt
>>>         Pages           : 7
>>>         Date            : 2006-8-1
>>>
>>> The IPv6 Neighbor Discovery's Router Advertisement message contains
>>> an 8-bit field reserved for single-bit flags.  Several protocols have
>>> reserved flags in this field and others are preparing to reserve a
>>> sufficient number of flags to exhaust the field.  This document
>>> defines an option to the Router Advertisement message that expands
>>> the available number of flag bits available.
>>>
>>>
>>> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-00.txt 
>>>