Date:Thu, 21 Feb 2002 12:41:50 +1300
From:"Sean Lin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <005d01c1ba68$2b360450$4e07a8c0@tukia>
I don't think there is a lot of point having this discussion again, so
this will be my last message about it, but ...
| I mean from the other
>
> | I was wondering if this has been mentioned before.
>
> It has been discussed before. It is a truly wonderful idea...
>
> If it could be done, there'd be no adverse effects, the problem
> is how the extra identifier gets distributed to the nodes. Your
> average system has no idea what i
>
>
> --On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 04:30:24 PM +0700 Robert Elz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Date:Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:16:10 +0100
> > From:Peter Bieringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Message-ID: <4490.1014192970@localhost>
> >
> > | BTW: looks like th
Hi Dave,
Neighbour Discovery is used for this
Please read RFC2461 for details.
Greg Daley
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.s
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Dave Saunders wrote:
> What is the equivalent solution to Proxy ARP under IPv6? I am working on
> a system that needs to have a single interface collect packets that are
> not necessarily destined for it.
Proxy Neighbour Advertisements, see RFC2461 7.2.8 etc.
--
Pekka Savol
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, NOISETTE Yoann FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:
> "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
IPV6 defines the Neighbor Discovery process to do this. See RFC2461.
Lilian
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Digambar Rasal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have presently a system in which we are using IPv4 and now we are implementating
>IPv6 . But the problem i have come across is how we are going to change the AR
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Digambar Rasal wrote:
> We have presently a system in which we are using IPv4 and now we are
> implementating IPv6 . But the problem i have come across is how we are
> going to change the ARP process. I mean can we use ARP with new 16 byte
> ipaddresses or we have to use some
What is the equivalent solution to Proxy ARP under IPv6? I
am working on a system that needs to have a single interface collect packets
that are not necessarily destined for it.
Thanks,
Dave
Title: RE: PPP and Global Addresses
I did not attend the IPng meeting in May 2001 in Redmond and in the minutes I do not see the reasons why DHCPv6 protocol is not appropriate for router prefix delegation.
For several contexts, I think that we need some protocols or some extensions to make th
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
Hi,
We have presently a system in which we are using
IPv4 and now we are implementating IPv6 . But the problem i have come
across is how we are going to change the ARP process. I mean can we use ARP with
new 16 byte ipaddresses or we have to use some other process for address
resolution?
Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> Dan Lanciani wrote:
|> An obvious reason would be that the one who wishes to subnet
|> the /64 is not the same one who should have used a /48, with
|> the former one having little control over the latter one.
|
|A dial-up connection gets a /48.
It's n
Hi All,
The 3GPP design team believes that
draft-ietf-ipv6-3gpp-recommend-00.txt
is ready for last call as an Informational RFC.
This draft has undergone a couple of rounds of WG review,
and the 3GPP is already acting on its contents.
Bob and Steve, if there are no objections from t
--On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 04:30:24 PM +0700 Robert Elz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date:Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:16:10 +0100
> From:Peter Bieringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <4490.1014192970@localhost>
>
> | BTW: looks like the same problem occurs
JINMEI Tatuya / $B?@L@C#:H(B wrote:
>
> Oops, I oversimplified this item. It should have been:
>
> if the ipi6_addr member for IPV6_PKTINFO on a TCP socket is non the
> unspecified address, the call should fail.
>
OK. That works for me.
Thanks
-vlad
+
> PS: the conclusion is we should specify/finish/implement/deploy router
> mechanisms ASAP, at least before IPv6 dialups become common.
I absolutely agree. My current conclusion among exsitsing choices is:
- APD for a customer whose CPE is a L3 Router
- RA(+RFC2462, 3041, etc.) for a customer who
Ah, now I understand what you mean. Excuse my slow brain :-)
In my scenario for Dial-up or DSL access services, some kind of L2
authentication, CHAP or 802.1x for example, runs before
AutomaticPrefixDelegation, and the delegating router gets a prefix from
Authentication server, Radius for example
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:32:59 -0500,
> Vladislav Yasevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> - 6.2: IPV6_PKTINFO should be forbidden for TCP
> ...
> I guess I missed the discussion above the above bullet. I
> don't believe it should be explicitely forbidden. Specifying
> the outgoing inter
> You answered all the questions in Bob's note except this one.
> And it is the most important one. :)
>>> To bring this back to the thread, do you think there is a need for a
>>> protocol here or are the current solutions adequate?
no. i answered it. essentially, it may be worthwhile, but unde
Randy,
>i suspect/hope that 20 years from now we will understand a lot more about
>infrastructure topology discovery and construction, accompanied by solid
>underlying theory, and will view this discussion as pretty primitive. of
>course, we have to live in today. but we should refrain from bei
>> there are isps where a human never types at a router (except to debug) and
>> all configuration is programatically generated from enterprise and customer
>> data entered by folk from sales to provisioning to address admin through
>> sexy gui interfaces. the canonic configuration is the data in
Randy,
At 05:40 PM 2/19/2002, Randy Bush wrote:
>there are isps where a human never types at a router (except to debug) and
>all configuration is programatically generated from enterprise and customer
>data entered by folk from sales to provisioning to address admin through
>sexy gui interfaces.
--
Vladislav Yasevich IPv6 Project Lead
Compaq Computer Corp.
110 Spit Brook Rd ZK03-3/T07Tel: (603) 884-1079
Nashua, NH 03062Fax: (435) 514-6884
-
JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
...
> - 6.2: IPV6_PKTINFO should be forbidden for TCP
...
I guess I missed the discussion above the above bullet. I
don't believe it should be explicitely forbidden. Specifying
the outgoing interface may be a useful feature.
-vlad
++
There seems to be no further arguments on the rfc2292bis draft.
The followings are a summary of necessary changes to the latest (05)
revision of the draft (as far as I understand):
- 6.1: add a forward reference to Section 6.7 about the outgoing
interface selection
- 6.2: IPV6_PKTINFO sho
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:15:41 -0500,
> Vladislav Yasevich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >> - 11.2: I share Vladislav's concerns (the MTU stuff is a bit too complex)
>>
>> >Do you mean the send() message should return an (immediate) error when
>> >the packet is not fit in the out
In your previous mail you wrote:
A point was made at the interim meeting (by Tony Hain, I believe, although
I trust my memory less now) that it would be prudent of us to ensure that
the ISP connection procedure for single hosts vs. routers is identical.
Otherwise, providers will be m
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Robert Elz wrote:
> It could just be that people believe that the only way to ever configure
> a router is manually, and that any protocol to automate the process is
> necessarily flawed. If so, I'd like to understand why, but I think I'd
> tend to ignore that sentiment - ot
Date:Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:16:10 +0100
From:Peter Bieringer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <4490.1014192970@localhost>
| BTW: looks like the same problem occurs in the forward chaining using
| A6.
I'm not sure if there's a problem with alignment in bitstring (
On Wed, 20 Feb 2002, Peter Bieringer wrote:
> --On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:05:27 AM -0800 David Terrell
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:44:03PM +0100, Peter Bieringer wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> during implementing bit-string label support in "ipv6calc" I run
--On Wednesday, February 20, 2002 12:05:27 AM -0800 David Terrell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2002 at 10:44:03PM +0100, Peter Bieringer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> during implementing bit-string label support in "ipv6calc" I run
>> (for me) into a problem and found no example.
>
> Sav
32 matches
Mail list logo
