On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 07:46 -0600, Dave Taht wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Roland Bless
> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 11.05.2011 05:32, Dave Taht wrote:
> > 1) in a wireshark analysis, the %interface part is lost
>
>
> But
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Roland Bless wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On 11.05.2011 05:32, Dave Taht wrote:
> > 1) in a wireshark analysis, the %interface part is lost
>
> But your wireshark is listening on some specific interface,
> isn't it?
No. It is listening on the wildcard interface. Of wh
Hi Dave,
On 11.05.2011 05:32, Dave Taht wrote:
> 1) in a wireshark analysis, the %interface part is lost
But your wireshark is listening on some specific interface,
isn't it? This interface is your context then and link locals are
unique on that particular link (which is assured by
Duplicate Addr
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Jeremy Visser wrote:
> Dave Taht said:
> > the bridged to a vlan fe80:: addresses are all the same. This strikes me
> > as a problem.
>
> You never reference link-local address by themselves anyway — they are
> always referenced with their scope ID for context. So
Dave Taht said:
> the bridged to a vlan fe80:: addresses are all the same. This strikes me
> as a problem.
You never reference link-local address by themselves anyway — they are
always referenced with their scope ID for context. So your addresses are
unique after all:
fe80::c63d:c7ff:fe8b:6e1a%br
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> BTW, every time I post nowadays, I get moderated on bismark-devel. Do you
> think you could grandfather bloat@ emails?
>
>
I've added you to the bismark-devel list and set nomail on.
> On May 9, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> Fred/all
BTW, every time I post nowadays, I get moderated on bismark-devel. Do you think
you could grandfather bloat@ emails?
On May 9, 2011, at 9:14 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> Fred/all
>
> See
>
> http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/126
>
> which has a ip -6 addr and ifconfig dump
>
> and see if that "see
Fred/all
See
http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/126
which has a ip -6 addr and ifconfig dump
and see if that "seems right" to you.
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On May 9, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> > On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
> >
> >
On May 9, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Dave Taht wrote:
> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On May 8, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>> > Is there a standard for renaming fe80:: addresses to represent they are
>> > interfacing with different vlans?
>>
>> well, yes. Link-local addr
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On May 8, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> > Is there a standard for renaming fe80:: addresses to represent they are
> interfacing with different vlans?
>
> well, yes. Link-local addresses (FE80::/10) areas you say interpreted only
> in
Hi Dave,
On 09.05.2011 05:26, Dave Taht wrote:
> I am modestly stumped as to how to solve this properly. I think it's
> been causing problems with ipv6 for a long time, but I could be wrong.
>
> see http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/126
>
> Basically although the underlying interfaces do have un
On May 8, 2011, at 8:26 PM, Dave Taht wrote:
> Is there a standard for renaming fe80:: addresses to represent they are
> interfacing with different vlans?
well, yes. Link-local addresses (FE80::/10) areas you say interpreted only in
the LAN in question. The usual approach is to give the LAN a
I am modestly stumped as to how to solve this properly. I think it's been
causing problems with ipv6 for a long time, but I could be wrong.
see http://www.bufferbloat.net/issues/126
Basically although the underlying interfaces do have unique mac addresses
(for some reason the underlying eth0 inte
13 matches
Mail list logo
