Guys, go visit the IETF SEND WG:
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/send-charter.html
Description of Working Group:
Neighbor Discovery is the basic protocol by which IPv6 nodes discover
their default routers on the local link, and by which nodes on a local
link resolve IPv6 addresses to MAC
On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 11:31:48PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 21:32, Peter Cordes wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 03:41:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Couldn't you do (b) the way SSH handles server public keys?
Sure, I suppose so, at least on hosts that
On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 03:27, Peter Cordes wrote:
Sure, I suppose so, at least on hosts that can keep enough state. Though
replacing a DHCP server would be a royal PITA!
If you could get the private key out and use it in the new one, it would be
ok.
Yep, but that's always the easy case.
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 03:41:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Bill Cerveny wrote:
This was also the engineer's point -- he felt IPv4 DHCP was broken in
this manner and this broken behavior was being perpetuated via IPv6
router
On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 21:32, Peter Cordes wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 03:41:44PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
Couldn't you do (b) the way SSH handles server public keys?
Sure, I suppose so, at least on hosts that can keep enough state. Though
replacing a DHCP server would be a royal
Bill == Bill Cerveny [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bill This was also the engineer's point -- he felt IPv4 DHCP was broken
Bill in this
Bill manner and this broken behavior was being perpetuated via IPv6
Bill router
Bill advertisements.
IPv4 DHCP is broken that way.
But,
Bill,
You should check out the work of the Secure Neighbour Discovery (SEND)
Working Group in the IETF which is working hard right now to address this
issue, and also the broader issue of securing the Neighbour Discovery
procedure in IPv6.
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/send-charter.html
At my office there are a bunch of engineers (including myself) who like to
experiment with routers. In one case, an engineer connected one interface
of the Cisco router to the general office network and turned on IPv6 with a
site-local address. My Linux and WinXP boxes received the router
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:56:48AM -0400, Bill Cerveny wrote:
- What is the recommended set-up for Linux servers which are not set-up as
routers? In my opinion, allowing a server to add addresses/routing every
time a router starts advertising rogue addressing blocks is dangerous and
should
On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 10:56 AM, Bill Cerveny wrote:
My questions:
- What is the recommended set-up for Linux servers which are not
set-up as routers? In my opinion, allowing a server to add
addresses/routing every time a router starts advertising rogue
addressing blocks is dangerous
On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 03:10 PM, Bill Cerveny wrote:
This was also the engineer's point -- he felt IPv4 DHCP was broken in
this manner and this broken behavior was being perpetuated via IPv6
router advertisements.
Well, the only solutions are really:
a) Static adressing
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:56:48AM -0400, Bill Cerveny wrote:
changes caused by the router advertisements. route failed in my attempts
to remove the /64 blocks. I ultimately got rid of the routing problems by
rebooting the Linux systems.
output of the route command and the error message
12 matches
Mail list logo
