Skip to main content

Address Mapping of IPv6 Multicast Packets on Ethernet
RFC 6085

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2015-10-14
06 (System) Notify list changed from sgundave@cisco.com, townsley@cisco.com, otroan@cisco.com, wdec@cisco.com, draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast@ietf.org, fred@cisco.com to fred@cisco.com
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Peter Saint-Andre
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Ralph Droms
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2012-08-22
06 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Lars Eggert
2011-01-31
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-01-31
06 Cindy Morgan [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6085'
2011-01-28
06 (System) RFC published
2010-10-20
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-19
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2010-10-19
06 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-10-19
06 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-10-19
06 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2010-10-19
06 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-10-19
06 Ron Bonica State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup by Ron Bonica
2010-10-19
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] Position for Lars Eggert has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Lars Eggert
2010-10-19
06 (System) New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-06.txt
2010-10-13
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ralph Droms has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ralph Droms
2010-10-13
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot discuss]
I think that RFC 2464 is surely a normative reference.
2010-10-13
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Adrian Farrel
2010-10-13
06 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] Position for Peter Saint-Andre has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-10-13
06 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-10-13
05 (System) New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-05.txt
2010-10-08
06 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-10-07
2010-10-07
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-10-07
06 Amy Vezza State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Amy Vezza
2010-10-07
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot comment]
I support the DISCUSSes from Lars and Adrian.
2010-10-07
06 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-10-06
06 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Sean Turner
2010-10-06
06 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-10-06
06 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-10-06
06 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-10-06
06 Stewart Bryant
[Ballot comment]
"It is inconsequential for
the network layer protocols or the IP stack to go across the layers
and check the semantics of message …
[Ballot comment]
"It is inconsequential for
the network layer protocols or the IP stack to go across the layers
and check the semantics of message delivery."

Does the author mean "It is inappropriate....."?

==========================
2010-10-06
06 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant
2010-10-06
06 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-10-06
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot discuss]
I think that RFC 2464 is surely a normative reference.
2010-10-06
06 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-10-05
06 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot discuss]
The Introduction states:

  ... if there is only one
  receiver and its link-layer address is known it is legal to send …
[Ballot discuss]
The Introduction states:

  ... if there is only one
  receiver and its link-layer address is known it is legal to send the
  IP multicast to the unicast link-layer address of that system.

Section 3 states:

  An IPv6 sender node in some special cases and specifically when
  the link-layer address of the target node is known, MAY choose to
  transmit an IPv6 multicast message as a link-layer unicast message
  to that node.

These are not consistent. Specifically, the Introduction makes it sound as if it is legal to send the IPv6 multicast message to the unicast link-layer address only if there is but one link-layer receiver, whereas Section 3 removes this restriction and states only that the sender of the IPv6 multicast message needs to know the address of the target node. Please harmonize the text between these two sections.
2010-10-05
06 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-10-05
06 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
Related to Lars' DISCUSS, this text in section 3 needs to be expanded
to be specific about how to handle the case when …
[Ballot discuss]
Related to Lars' DISCUSS, this text in section 3 needs to be expanded
to be specific about how to handle the case when there are multiple target
nodes in the multicast group:

  o  An IPv6 sender node in some special cases and specifically when
      the link-layer address of the target node is known, MAY choose to
      transmit an IPv6 multicast message as a link-layer unicast message
      to that node.
2010-10-05
06 Ralph Droms
[Ballot comment]
Introduction:

  It is inconsequential for
  the network layer protocols or the IP stack to go across the layers
  and check …
[Ballot comment]
Introduction:

  It is inconsequential for
  the network layer protocols or the IP stack to go across the layers
  and check the semantics of message delivery.

Not sure what "inconsequential" means here...
2010-10-05
06 Ralph Droms
[Ballot discuss]
Related to Lars' DISCUSS, this text in section 3 needs to be expanded to be specific about how to handle the case when …
[Ballot discuss]
Related to Lars' DISCUSS, this text in section 3 needs to be expanded to be specific about how to handle the case when there are multiple target nodes in the multicast group:

  o  An IPv6 sender node in some special cases and specifically when
      the link-layer address of the target node is known, MAY choose to
      transmit an IPv6 multicast message as a link-layer unicast message
      to that node.
2010-10-05
06 Ralph Droms [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Ralph Droms
2010-10-04
06 Lars Eggert
[Ballot discuss]
Bernard Aboba's tsv-dir review raises the following point:

> This document, while making a valid point, needs additional refinement so as
> to …
[Ballot discuss]
Bernard Aboba's tsv-dir review raises the following point:

> This document, while making a valid point, needs additional refinement so as
> to ensure that IP multicast packets are sent to all potential subscribers on
> a LAN.  In its current form, this document provides too much wiggle room for
> implementers and is could potentially result in
> Interoperability problems.

Please see his detailed review for the specific instances where he recommends improvements to the document.
2010-10-04
06 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-10-03
06 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-10-01
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Tom Yu.
2010-09-28
06 Cindy Morgan State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by Cindy Morgan
2010-09-28
06 Ron Bonica Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-10-07 by Ron Bonica
2010-09-28
06 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica
2010-09-28
06 Ron Bonica Ballot has been issued by Ron Bonica
2010-09-28
06 Ron Bonica Created "Approve" ballot
2010-09-09
06 Amanda Baber We understand that this document does not require any IANA actions.
2010-08-30
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu
2010-08-30
06 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Tom Yu
2010-08-30
06 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-08-30
06 Amy Vezza State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-08-30
06 Amy Vezza Last Call was requested by Amy Vezza
2010-08-30
06 Amy Vezza State changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-08-28
06 Ron Bonica Last Call was requested by Ron Bonica
2010-08-28
06 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-08-28
06 (System) Last call text was added
2010-08-28
06 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-08-26
04 (System) New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-04.txt
2010-08-24
06 Ron Bonica [Note]: 'Fred Baker (fred@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Ron Bonica
2010-08-23
06 Ron Bonica [Note]: 'Fred Baker begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting (fred@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Ron Bonica
2010-08-23
06 Ron Bonica [Note]: 'Fred Baker begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highlighting (fred@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Ron Bonica
2010-08-21
06 Ron Bonica Area acronymn has been changed to ops from gen
2010-08-21
06 Ron Bonica Intended Status has been changed to Proposed Standard from Informational
2010-08-16
03 (System) New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-03.txt
2010-08-16
06 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he …
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The document shepherd is Fred Baker. Yes, I believe that it is ready for IESG consideration.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

It has been through working group last call in v6ops, where there was debate, and 6man, which didn't significantly comment. The document itself is very simple; in essence, it states that an IPv6 multicast message that is known to be being sent to a single peer, such as a neighbor solicitation that is refreshing an existing neighbor cache entry, MAY be sent as a link layer unicast, and a neighboring system MUST NOT discard it for that reason alone (it may, of course, have other reasons to consider it incorrect). This is standard practice with IPv4 ARP, and could be used in sparse mode multicast under certain circumstances.

Comments received fell into three main categories:
- the text could be tightened up in places
- use case examples should perhaps be moved to an appendix as they clutter the concept
- two respondents commented that their (common) hardware was unable to send a message that way

Most comments were resolved the the satisfaction of the respondents. While I would describe the consensus with the third pair as "rough", the case they were concerned about is actually not an issue. The spec says that they "may" do something that their hardware will not do, which means that their implementation will still operate correctly if in a different way.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

I have no such concern.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

I think the document and its recommendations are very straightforward. I know of no IPR statement.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

The general consensus supports it. As noted, two developers working on a single platform expressed concern.

Places where the capability is assumed and where this document is therefore a helpful clarification include:

- 802.11 AP-AP mobility: each time the mobile roams in to an AP, a unicast RA for the home prefix/VLAN is sent to only that mobile node. There is no need to send it to the vast majority of nodes if only one is potentially changing its router or prefix.

- BBF needs it in DSL networks - again, when a new node comes up, every node doesn't need what in that type of network is sent as multiple parallel unicasts.

- Proxy Mobile IPv6 in WLAN networks.

- Suresh Krishnan needs it for a new draft he is developing.

- Jean-Michel Combes needs this support in his new draft.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

There has been no threat of appeal.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ ). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met
all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor,
media type and URI type reviews?

Yes. It passes idnits and contains no formal grammar.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative?

It has.

Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

There are no such normative references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document?

The document correctly states that it makes no request of IANA.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There are no such sections.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

When transmitting an IPv6 packet to a multicast group, the
destination address in the link-layer header is typically set to the
corresponding mapped address of the destination address from the IP
header. However, it is not mandatory that the destination address in
the link-layer header is always a mapped multicast equivalent of its
IP destination address. There are various deployment scenarios where
there a need to transmit an IPv6 multicast message as an unicast
message on the link-layer. Unfortunately, the IPv6 specifications do
not clearly state this. This document explicitly clarifies this
point and makes such packet construct and transmission legal and
valid.

Working Group Summary

The working group reviewed and discussed the draft. There was a point of rough consensus, but in general respondents said the document was relevant, useful, and appropriate.

Document Quality

The document is readable to a native speaker of English. It is very simple, and its two recommendations are clearly stated.
2010-08-16
06 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-16
06 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-16
06 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Fred Baker (fred@cisco.com) is the document shepherd.' added by Cindy Morgan
2010-08-11
02 (System) New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-02.txt
2010-07-26
01 (System) New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-01.txt
2010-02-15
00 (System) New version available: draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt