Hi,
Just want to know that if its possible to dynamically update
dns if we are assigning ipv6 addresses dynamically by router
advertisements(for e.g rtdavd or zebra that finally assignes
a EUI64+ compaitable ipv6 address) kinda like DHCP mechanism.
DHCP has a support for dynamic dns updates
Title: RE: PPP and Global Addresses
PD (Automatic Prefix Delegation) doesn't specify any means to set the prefix pool the routers rely on for delegation, apart from a manual setting.
The DHCPv6 option could be used in this aim, and would be therefore complementary to PD...
Moreover PD also
PD (Automatic Prefix Delegation) doesn't specify any means to set the
prefix pool the routers rely on for delegation, apart from a manual
setting.
Could you kindly explain what you mean by this sentence in another way? I
did't get the point...
The DHCPv6 option could be used in this aim, and
Title: RE: PPP and Global Addresses
The draft-haberman-ipngwg-auto-prefix-01.txt says :
4.4 Prefix Delegation
After the request is verified to be acceptable, the Delegating
Router allocates the requested prefix size from its pool of
available addresses. The creation and management
In your previous mail you wrote:
I was wondering if this has been mentioned before. Will there be
adverse effects( is this allowed in the first place?)
= this is NOT allowed and is not useful (link-local addresses are
bound to a link, there is no need to say which link inside the
From draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-07 in section 2.4 it states:
Address type Binary prefixIPv6 notation Section
-- ---
Unspecified 00...0 (128 bits) ::/128 2.5.2
Loopback
In your previous mail you wrote:
... The creation and management of that pool is
beyond the scope of this document, but it can be supposed that
minimalistically a Delegating Router will be statically configured
with a fixed pool.
What I meant is that the pool used
In your previous mail you wrote:
So, is it sufficient to say any address that starts with FEC0::/10 is a
site local address or does it have to be FEC0::48?
= I believe the 07 draft clearly specifies that anything which is in
fec0::/10 but not in fec0::/48 is reserved, i.e. an illegal
In your previous mail you wrote:
Not even when the M and O bits in the Router Advertisement message are
configured to indicate a combination of stateless and stateful
autoconfiguration such that DHCPv6 provides options (e.g., SIP server
option) but not an actual address?
= look
In your previous mail you wrote:
Mr. Dupont, DHCP originally started with allowing dynamic
IP address allocation. A secondary benefit of utility is in
network operations, it is impossible to manually assign IP
address to 100's of hosts let alone 1,000,000's that IPv6
would allow.
nope, not enough for a accounting, service termination etc.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Francis Dupont
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 8:55 AM
To: Dr. Subrata Goswami
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: PPP and Global Addresses
In
You are asking an implementation specific question. There is nothing in
either mechanism specifically targeting DDNS updates, but you will
likely find products that do update dns whichever mechanism gets used.
One design assumption of RA based auto-config was that nodes would most
likely register
In your previous mail you wrote:
... The creation and management of that pool is
beyond the scope of this document, but it can be supposed that
minimalistically a Delegating Router will be statically configured
with a fixed pool.
What I meant is that the
Ole Troan wrote:
...
would you be happier if we renamed it to SNCP (Simple Node
Configuration Protocol)? :-)
Actually, yes. Routers are not hosts, so configuring routers with what
is titled a host specific protocol will create more confusion than it is
worth.
for me this boils down to
14 matches
Mail list logo
