I think *righ*... eg: The only clean way with IPinIP is that every proxies
subnet can be distinguished on a registrar by the encapsulation header of IPinIP
and that only has source and destination ACP ULA addresses, yada yada: we need
either more ULA on the proxy and/or the registrar.
I gues
Eliot Lear wrote:
> On the other hand, maybe it's fundamental, but is relying on LL in this
> architecture to go beyond LL boundaries the right thing to do?
We've already established a way around the concern that made me think
that we needed multiple LL for the proxy, and also that we ne
Remember that the pledge can only have a link-local address during bootstrap,
so i would not know how to interpret your comment.
Cheers
Toerless
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 07:41:40AM +, Eliot Lear (elear) wrote:
> Sure. Use normal unicast addresses (ULA or other) if available.
>
> Eliot
>
Sure. Use normal unicast addresses (ULA or other) if available.
Eliot
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>
> Can you propose a stateless proxy model that would not pass the link-local
> addresses on to the registrar and that uses Michaels beloved IPinIP encap ?
>
> Alas i h
Can you propose a stateless proxy model that would not pass the link-local
addresses on to the registrar and that uses Michaels beloved IPinIP encap ?
Alas i have fallen in love with UDP encap because i like to see more
networking software now be build like any othrer application on top of
UDP/TCP
On 17/07/2017 18:54, Eliot Lear wrote:
> On the other hand, maybe it's fundamental, but is relying on LL in this
> architecture to go beyond LL boundaries the right thing to do?
What it would do is prolong the link, virtually, up to a dedicated virtual
interface in the registrar. So I think it's s
