> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:26:50 -0800,
> Michael Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Section 11.2 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-08.txt contains a slight
> error:
>int on = 1;
>setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_DONTFRAG, &on, sizeof(&on));
> s/sizeof(&on)/sizeof(on)/
Tha
>Yes that is what the spec says, but reality is always somewhat
>different. There is no technical reason that an anycast address could
>not be assigned to any group of hosts. The issue that must be dealt with
there are technical reasons why anycast addresses can only be assigned
to
> Erik Nordmark wrote:
> But the private interconnects seem to imply that there needs to
> be more than two faces - one for each set of set of sites that
> use GUPI/GUSL for private interconnects I think.
Yes.
> Has anybody thought through how this would work? With recursive
> resolvers?
No. Wit
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Oops...
>
> I made a mistake in the response. An anycast address can
> only be assigned to a router (an IPv6 node that forwards
> packets), not to a host.
>
> So, most Web Servers could not be assigned an anycast address.
>
Yes that is what the spec says, but real
Pekka Savola wrote:
> ==> another disadvantage is that the sites should really be /48's to make
> mergers with Internet global prefixes & addressing easier.
Pekka,
In both Bob Hinden's draft and my (quite similar) version we are allocating
addresses to *subnets*, not *sites*. And subnets receiv
Section 11.2 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-08.txt contains a slight
error:
int on = 1;
setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_DONTFRAG, &on, sizeof(&on));
s/sizeof(&on)/sizeof(on)/
mph
---
Hello,
A few quick comments on the draft. Sorry for lack of content.
Substantial:
This document proposes an approach to allocating IPv6 Site-Local
address so they are globally unique and routable only inside of a
site.
==> it would be good to go a bit more in depth to how this is actu
> One thing I haven't seen discussed in the GUPI/GUSL threads is
> how folks envision they and DNS to fit together for the lookups
> especially when GUPI is used for private interconnects between sites
> (whether it is site-to-site or goes through some ISPs through private
> arrangements).
I
Hello,
A few quick comments on the draft. Sorry for so little content.
As a general note I'm a bit unsure which particular usage cases different
site-local approaches aim to solve.
Substantial:
The moderate use scenario limits their use to cases where site-local
addresses specifically c
Hello,
A few comments on this draft; apologies about a very quick read only.
In general I agree with most conclusions in the draft. I don't like site
locals at all, because they're used wrongly. However, I can understand
why people want to use them .. the perceived ease for itself (but making
Oops...
I made a mistake in the response. An anycast address can only
be assigned to a router (an IPv6 node that forwards packets), not
to a host.
So, most Web Servers could not be assigned an anycast address.
Sorry,
Margaret
At 08:28 AM 1/22/2003 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Digama
Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> |Sorry for the delayed response - didn't see me in the to: or cc: fields.
|>
|> I try to keep all the mail to the list just to the list...
|
|As long as you don't ask me direct questions and expect me to answer
|than would be fine. This time it took alm
> Erik Nordmark wrote:
> On the enterprise side I can see that folks have been
> bitting or are concerned about renumbering costs if they
> were to use PA addresses.
> But I don't have any data on how many consider having one
> PA prefix per ISP good enough since it allows some graceful
> cutover
Hi Digamar,
Sorry for not replying earlier.
I have read the RFC reagrding the addressing in IPv6 and I understood that
Web servers , routers , load balancers, Gateways and Switches can have
either Unicast or Multicast or Anycast address.
Any IPv6 node can have any of these types of addresses
Hi
I am developing a Web server , router , load balancers, Gateway and Switch
testing software.
I have read the RFC reagrding the addressing in IPv6 and I understood that
Web servers , routers , load balancers, Gateways and Switches can have
either Unicast or Multicast or Anycast address.
I am
In theory yes, but the Namespace Research Group tried and failed.
Brian
Ronald van der Pol wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:34:19 +0100, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> > Granted that this is a hard problem, but we seem to be spending emails
> > on multiple subsets of this problem (in different
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:34:19 +0100, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Granted that this is a hard problem, but we seem to be spending emails
> on multiple subsets of this problem (in different WGs) thus I think it
> would be worth-while to concentrate thinking on the identifier/locator
> separation probl
17 matches
Mail list logo
