From: Brian Zill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My take: given that it appears the majority of implementations currently
do DAD, and that DAD provides for a cleaner multi-link subnet
architecture, I think DAD is the better choice.
Umm.. majority of implementations? What is this? How do you count
them?
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:37:16 -0700,
Brian Zill [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
My take: given that it appears the majority of implementations currently
do DAD, and that DAD provides for a cleaner multi-link subnet
architecture, I think DAD is the better choice.
(Aside from the point if multi-link
if link MTUs are not stable enough, there will be more ICMP too big
than we desire.
Please provide an analysis. I don't think this is the case.
there was some research paper on IPv4 PMTU from aist-nara.ac.jp,
i don't have a reference now.
The point is that I don't
Hello Everyone!,
I am facing a problem using HTB as a traffic shaper.
No matter what I do, incoming traffic is not being curbed.
My arrangement for simulation is as follows:
64kbps 64kbps
kre,
Name one operational annoyance? That is one that my use of
/112 (or someone else's use of /126 or /127) inflicts upon you,
assuming that you're not the other end of the link (if you are,
it is your choice to participate, no-one is compelling you to
use /64).
I will address this in
jj,
jj wrote:
5) I want to have maximum freedom with my /64.
This is the most important argument, in my mind. I don't
think any benefit gained from establishing a 64-bit
boundary can possibly justify loosing the freedom of not
being confined to that boundary.
You have to be careful using
