>MLD, joining on solicited node and all nodes
>multicast addresses is not required.
The term "joining" could mean e.g. "record the group membership
in the IP stack". Saying "sending MLD reports" would be much more exact
for what you are trying to say.
Erik
--
sorry for off topic posting.
when you come to tokyo for IETF54, do not forget to visit IPv6
demonstration booth operated by promotion council. they have
whole bunch of IPv6-ready gadgets. it is in central Tokyo so you need
1 hour train ride from the venue
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 6:29 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: DNS discovery thoughts
>
>
>
> I've been thinking about the DNS discovery, as well as the larger
> "service discovery with no 3rd party de
The anycast-analysis has been sitting in front of Thomas and I for quite a long
time while we were trying to figure out if the IETF needs to do something more
significant in the anycast space (such as an anycast WG; such as a way to
resolve or at least document the differences between the IPv4 DNS
I sent the attached message to the routing area discussion list. I thought that
people on
the IPv6 list might be interested in this discussion, so I will forward a message
containing
the responses after this one. I suppose I just should have cc:ed the IPv6 group in the
first place...
Margare
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 21:29:52 -0400
>To: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Jeff Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: IPv6 Scoped Addresses and Routing Protocols
>
>At 12:17 PM -0400 5/24/02, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>>I raised so
>From: Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: IPv6 Scoped Addresses and Routing Protocols
>Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:48:50 +0200
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-milter (http://amavis.org/) at ens
>Unfortunately, I can't find any indication that these concepts have been reflected
>in the current IPv6 routing protocols. None of our IPv6 routing protocol documents
>deal with site-local boundaries or SBR behaviour explicitly.
>
>There are currently four standards for how IPv6 routes will be
I've only briefly read through the scoped architecture draft, running an IGP
per zone might be more correct, although I can only think of one instance
where there would be multiple zones and multiple IGPs running, and that is
for site-level zones, so the SBR / ZBR(?) terminology is really the same
Hi Itojun,
> in my opinion, site border routers need to have ability to run
> separate entity of RIP/OSPFv3/IS-IS for each site (don't mix them up).
> there's no need for protocol modification, since there will be no
> interaction between routes in site A and site
Hi all,
Prior to London, I had suggested to Itujun that I could supply text
for this work on the use of anycast with SCTP. SCTP potentially has
some very useful features that could mesh well with anycast, and
get over some of the difficulties of using anycast.
Unfortunately, I ran out of time
>I am not quite sure what you mean...
>
>Assume that I have a router with 4 interfaces (A, B, C and D) in two sites (S1 & S2),
>with
>interfaces A & B in S1, and interfaces C & D in site 2, all on an OSPF network. How
>many
>instances of OSPF would I need to run?
>
>Your message seems to indic
>Prior to London, I had suggested to Itujun that I could supply text
>for this work on the use of anycast with SCTP. SCTP potentially has
>some very useful features that could mesh well with anycast, and
>get over some of the difficulties of using anycast.
>
>Unfortunately, I ran out of time and
13 matches
Mail list logo
