> -----Original Message-----> From:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf at docomolabs-usa.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1:26 PM
> To: Dave Thaler; Julien Laganier; INT Area
> Cc: NetLMM WG
> Subject: Re: IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix, and
broadcast
> domain
>
> Dave,
>
> RFC 1812 Section 2.2.5.1 defines the case where multiple subnets are
> associated with a single interface of a router thusly:
>
> "The inventors of the subnet mechanism presumed that each piece of
an
> organization's network would have only a single subnet number. In
> practice, it has often proven necessary or useful to have several
> subnets share a single physical cable.

Yes the last sentence above is what we mean by multiple subnets on a
single link.

> For this reason, routers
> should be capable of configuring multiple subnets on the same
> physical interfaces, and treat them (from a routing or forwarding
> perspective) as though they were distinct physical interfaces."

The "treat them as though they were distinct interfaces" is just one way
to implement multiple subnets on a single link, but it is not the only
way or necessarily even the recommended way. The sentence is just
saying it should be a configurable option to be able to do it that way.

-Dave

> Is this what you mean by multiple subnets on a single link?
>
> jak
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Thaler"
> To: "Julien Laganier" ; "INT Area"
>
> Cc: "James Kempf" ; "NetLMM WG"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 1:13 PM
> Subject: RE: IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix, and
broadcast
> domain
>
>
> If I understand the picture at bottom, this is fine.
> That is, there can be multiple subnet prefixes per link,
> and different hosts may be in different subsets of the
> set of subnet prefixes. All of this is fine in the IP
> addressing model.
>
> Section 2.1 of the [draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues]
draft
> acknowledges this:
>
> In December 1995, the original IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
> [RFC1884] was published, stating: "IPv6 continues the IPv4 model
> that a subnet is associated with one link. Multiple subnets may be
> assigned to the same link."
>
> Thus it explicitly acknowledges that the current IPv4 model has
been
> that a subnet is associated with one link, and that IPv6 does not
> change this model. Furthermore, a subnet is sometimes considered
to
> be only a subset of a link, when multiple subnets are assigned to
> the same link.
>
> -Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Julien Laganier [mailto:julien.IETF at laposte.net]
> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 6:21 AM
> > To: Dave Thaler; INT Area
> > Cc: James Kempf; NetLMM WG
> > Subject: IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet prefix, and broadcast
> domain
> >
> > Hi Dave, and other folks knowledgeable about IPv6 addressing model,
> >
> > [netlmm at ietf.org CCed, please reply only to int-area at ietf.org]
> >
> > While working on the issues of which addressing model to use in
> > NetLMM, I think I got confused with issues involved the IPv6
> > addressing model (or its assumptions.)
> >
> > I would therefore like to ask you if a potential NetLMM addressing
> > model (per-MN subnet prefix [RFC3314]) would, in some situations,
> > conflict with the IP addressing model.
> >
> > Background
> > ----------
> >
> > Dave's draft on issues involved with multilink subnets
> > [draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues] list some assumptions
> > of the IP addressing model, but there might be other that are not
> > specific to multilink subnets. I'd therefore like to ask you about
> > possible conflicts between IPv6 and RFC3314 addressing model.
> >
> > We are considering the situation of mobile nodes (MNs) attached to a
> > NetLMM domain. The NetLMM domain span multiple access links, each
> > served by a given access router (AR). A MN attaches to one link, and
> > hence to one AR.
> >
> > ( NetLMM domain )
> > / | | |
> > AR AR AR AR AR
> > / /
> > MN MN MN MN MN MN
> >
> > If all of the MNs in the domain uses a common subnet prefix we
> > obviously end-up with a multilink subnet, which is problematic as
> > described in Dave's draft. Now a simple way to avoid multilink
subnet
> > issues is to use a per-MN subnet prefix, as in the IETF
> > recommendation to 3GPP [RFC3314]. That way, each of the MN moves has
> > a different prefix and hence none of the prefix spans more than one
> > link, thus avoiding multilink subnet issues.
> >
> > Issue
> > -----
> >
> > Such model has however raised a question, which is orthogonal to
> > multi-link subnets issues. RFC3314 was proposed for use in a
scenario
> > where the link between the MN and its AR is point-to-point. Now if
we
> > consider a br

結果 (中文) 1:

>---原始消息--> 从: James Kempf [在 docomolabs-usa.com 的 mailto:kempf]> 发送: 星期二 2006 年 8 月 8 日 1:26 下午> 到: 戴夫 · 泰勒;于连拉加尼耶;INT 地区> Cc: NetLMM WG> 主题: Re: IPv6 寻址模式，每个锰子网前缀和广播> 域> > 戴夫，> > RFC 1812 节 2.2.5.1 定义的情况下多个子网> 广交与路由器的单个接口相关联:> >"子网机制的发明者推定每片一个> 组织的网络会把只有单个子网号。在> 实践，往往证明是必要的或有用的有几个> 子网共享一个单一的物理电缆。上述的最后一句是我们所说的在多子网单链路。> 为这个原因，路由器> 应该有能力在同一配置多个子网> 物理接口和对待他们 (从路由或转发> perspective) 好像他们是不同的物理接口.""把他们当作不同接口"，只有一条路要执行多个子网关于单个链路，但它不是唯一不见得是推荐的方法或方式。这句话只是说它应该是一个可配置的选项，以便能够那样做。-戴夫> 这是你的意思是通过对单个链路的多个子网吗?> > jak> >---原始消息--> 从:"戴夫 · 泰勒"> 到:"朱利安拉加尼耶";"INT 区"> > Cc:"James Kempf";"NetLMM"WG> > 发送: 星期二 2006 年 8 月 8 日 1:13 下午> 主题: RE: IPv6 寻址模式，每个锰子网前缀和广播> 域> > > 如果我没有理解底部图片，这是很好。> 那就是，可以有多个的子网前缀，每个链接，> 和不同的主机可能在不同的子集> 组子网前缀。所有这一切都是很好的 IP> 寻址模式。> > [Draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues] 第 2.1 条草案> 确认了这一点:> > 在 1995 年 12 月，原 IP 版本 6 寻址体系结构> [RFC1884] 发表，指出:"IPv6 继续 IPv4 模式> 子网是与一个链接相关联。多个子网可能> 分配给相同的链接。"> > 因此它明确承认，当前的 IPv4 模型具有被> 子网是与一个链接相关联，该 IPv6 不> 更改该模型。此外，有时被认为是一个子网自> 是一个子集的一个环节，当分配到多个子网> 相同的链接。> >-戴夫> >>---原始消息-->> 从: 朱利安 Laganier [mailto:julien。在 laposte.net 的 IETF]>> 发送: 星期一 2006 年 8 月 7 日 6:21 上午>> 到: 戴夫 · 泰勒;INT 地区>> Cc: James Kempf;NetLMM WG>> 主题: IPv6 寻址模型，每个锰子网前缀和广播> domain> >> > Hi Dave, and other folks knowledgeable about IPv6 addressing model,> >> > [netlmm at ietf.org CCed, please reply only to int-area at ietf.org]> >> > While working on the issues of which addressing model to use in> > NetLMM, I think I got confused with issues involved the IPv6> > addressing model (or its assumptions.)> >> > I would therefore like to ask you if a potential NetLMM addressing> > model (per-MN subnet prefix [RFC3314]) would, in some situations,> > conflict with the IP addressing model.> >> > Background> > ----------> >> > Dave's draft on issues involved with multilink subnets> > [draft-thaler-intarea-multilink-subnet-issues] list some assumptions> > of the IP addressing model, but there might be other that are not> > specific to multilink subnets. I'd therefore like to ask you about> > possible conflicts between IPv6 and RFC3314 addressing model.> >> > We are considering the situation of mobile nodes (MNs) attached to a> > NetLMM domain. The NetLMM domain span multiple access links, each> > served by a given access router (AR). A MN attaches to one link, and> > hence to one AR.> >> > ( NetLMM domain )> > / | | | > > AR AR AR AR AR> > / / > > MN MN MN MN MN MN> >> > If all of the MNs in the domain uses a common subnet prefix we> > obviously end-up with a multilink subnet, which is problematic as> > described in Dave's draft. Now a simple way to avoid multilinksubnet> > issues is to use a per-MN subnet prefix, as in the IETF> > recommendation to 3GPP [RFC3314]. That way, each of the MN moves has> > a different prefix and hence none of the prefix spans more than one> > link, thus avoiding multilink subnet issues.> >> > Issue> > -----> >> > Such model has however raised a question, which is orthogonal to> > multi-link subnets issues. RFC3314 was proposed for use in ascenario> > where the link between the MN and its AR is point-to-point. Now ifwe> > consider a br

結果 (中文) 3:

> -----原始信息----->来自：杰姆斯肯普夫[肯普夫]在docomolabs-usa.com mailto：>发送：星期二，8月26日下午08，2006>：戴夫泰勒；朱利安拉加尼耶；国际地区>抄送：NETLMM工作组>主题：回复：IPv6寻址模式，每锰子网前缀，和广播域>戴夫，>> RFC 1812节2.2.5.1定义多个子网的情况下>一个接口的路由器，因此相关：>“子网机制的发明人假定每一块一个组织的网络将只有一个单独的子网号。在实践，它经常被证明是必要的或有用的有几个>子网共享一个物理电缆。是上面的最后一句话就是我们所说的多个子网在单链路。因为这个原因，路由器>应该能够在同一子网配置多物理接口，并对它们进行处理（从路由或转发>透视），好像他们是不同的物理接口。“把他们视为不同的界面”只是一种方式在单一链路实现多个子网，但它不是唯一的方式或必然的建议方式。这句话只是说它应该是一个可配置的选择是能够做到这一方式。•戴夫>这是你说的多个子网，在一个单一的链接？>> JAK>> -----原始信息----->：“戴夫泰勒<< dthaler Windows。微软.com >>：“朱利安拉加尼耶<< julien.ietf在laposte。网>；“国际区”> <国际地区在IETF。org >>答：“杰姆斯肯普夫”<肯普夫>“docomolabs-usa.com NETLMM工作组”；> <在IETF NETLMM。org >>发送：星期二，08八月，2006 1:13 PM>主题：回复：IPv6寻址模式，每锰子网前缀，和广播域>>如果我明白了这幅画的底部，这是好的。>即可以有链接子网前缀的多，和不同的主机可能是在不同的子集的>设置子网前缀。所有这一切都很好“寻址模式”。>>的[草案泰勒intarea链路子网问题2.1节]草案承认这一：>十二月1995，原知识产权6地址架构> [ rfc1884 ]发表，指出：“IPv6的IPv4模式继续子网与一个链接关联。多个子网可以分配到同一个链接。”>>从而明确承认目前的IPv4模型被>，子网是一个链接，而IPv6不改变这种模式。此外，有时被认为是一个子网以>只是一个链接的一个子集，当多个子网分配给同一链接。>>戴夫>> > -----原始信息-----> >：朱利安拉加尼耶[地址：julien.ietf在laposte净]。> >发送：星期一，07八月，2006 6:21我> >：戴夫泰勒；国际地区> >抄送：杰姆斯肯普夫；NETLMM工作组> >主题：IPv6寻址模式，每锰子网前缀，和广播域>> >嗨戴夫，和其他人对IPv6寻址模型知识，>> > [ NETLMM在ietf.org CCED，请回复只有int地区在IETF组织]。>在处理该模型的问题时使用> >很好，我觉得我有问题的IPv6的困惑（或其假设）>> >所以我想问你，如果一个潜在的本地寻址> >模型（每锰子网前缀[ rfc3314 ]），在某些情况下，与知识产权处理模式的冲突。>“背景> > ---------->> >戴夫的草案所涉及的问题与多链路子网> > [草案泰勒intarea链路子网问题]列出一些假设“知识产权地址模型”，但可能有其他的不> >具体到多个子网。所以我想问你> >可能的冲突和rfc3314 IPv6寻址模式。>> >我们考虑移动节点的情况（MNS）连接到一个> >本地域。在本地域跨越多个访问链接，每个由一个给定的接入路由器服务（应）。锰附于一个连接，和> >因此一AR。>> >（本地域）> > / | | |应是应的/ / / / / / /锰锰锰锰>> >如果所有域中的MnS使用共同的子网前缀我们> >显然结束了一个多链路子网，这是有问题的戴夫的草案中描述的。现在，一个简单的方法来避免链路子网> >问题是使用每锰子网前缀，如IETF> >推荐rfc3314 3GPP [ ]。这样，每一个的锰移动“不同的前缀，因此没有一个前缀超过一个> >链接，从而避免链路子网问题。>>问题> > ----->这样的模式已经提出了一个问题，这是正交的> >多链路子网问题。rfc3314提出用在场景在这里，锰与它的对应关系是点对点的。现在如果我们考虑一个溴