Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Sun, 06 Oct 2002 10:38:32 -0400
> From:Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | You haven't provided the information that router B would use
> | to make that determination.
>
> Brian Haberman provided
Hi,
In RFC2373, a subnet-router anycast address is defined, from the
prefixes available on a link, with host ID part set to 0.
Should it be done also for the link-local prefix ? i.e. is it
mandatory for a router to answer to the fe80:: anycast address ?
If yes, would it make sense for a host o
At 02:21 AM 10/7/02, Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Sun, 06 Oct 2002 10:38:32 -0400
> From:Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | You haven't provided the information that router B would use
> | to make that determination.
>
>Brian
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> I'm not sure, though, that Brian's explanation is consistent with the
> following line in the scoped address architecture:
>
> "Each interface belongs to exactly one zone of each possible scope."
>
> Based on Brian's explanation, it would seem like the interfaces o
Hello,
We are trying to implement the new version-neutral MIB data provided by
the IPv6 MIB Design team. We have found that another MIB module we
support, the IPOA-MIB from RFC2320, uses some of the newly deprecated MIB
objects in the new RFC2011 draft. For example, table entry
ipoaArpClient
On 25 Sep 2002 Pekka Savola wrote:
>>This is probably a dumb question, but is there must be a reason why these
>>API's don't talk at all about ioctl's etc? For example, I see no
standard
>>way of obtaining (all or some) of one's IPv6 addresses, or whatever else
>>was useful with SIOC*.
We als
>
>Good catch Margaret. I should have noticed that the example given
>actually violates the scoped addressing architecture doc. The
>forwarding logic is still correct, but you can only have, at most,
>one zone id per scope per interface. Otherwise you would have
>overlapping scope zones.
Are
Mohamad Khalil, Brett Pentland, and I just submitted a draft on modifying the RS
reply timing:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mkhalil-ipv6-fastra-02.txt
I didn't see an announcement from the drafts editor in this group.
In summary, the draft amends RFC 2461 to allow at most one route
At Tue, 08 Oct 2002 12:19:44 -0400, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> In other words, I think that routers should default to the
> single-link subnet case, unless mutli-link subnetting has been
> explicitly configured.
I agree.
IET
James
I think that the draft is missing a trigger mechanism for a fast RA
response. What I mean is, that if any node not requiring a fast RA
joins the link, it will use up a fast RA that will potentially cause
delays for a node that would really like a fast answer.
You could take one of the res
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
>>
>> Good catch Margaret. I should have noticed that the example given
>> actually violates the scoped addressing architecture doc. The
>> forwarding logic is still correct, but you can only have, at most,
>> one zone id per scope per interface. Otherwise you would
Vlad,
Good point. This would work for the normal circumstance, though it would not
deter an attacker, as you point out.
jak
- Original Message -
From: "Vladislav Yasevich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, Octobe
> Michael MacFaden writes:
Michael> Given the history of the IP-FORWARD-MIB: ipRouteTable,
Michael> ipForwardTable, and the ipCidrRouteTable a minimalist
Michael> approach might mean we have a higher probability that can get
Michael> this new work to full standard.
The problem with the IP-F
Juergen,
So, should we look at trying to simplify the indices for the
tables? That would seem like the logical thing to me.
Brian
Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>
> > Michael MacFaden writes:
>
> Michael> Given the history of the IP-FORWARD-MIB: ipRouteTable,
> Michael> ipForwardTable,
Hi Vlad,
I'm not sure that there is a requirement to use a fastra flag.
There may be situations where multiple nodes come up on a link
in the duration between multicast advertisements but this may be
handled by the MAX_FAST_RAS being set high enough to handle this.
In the case where many nodes c
>The more I think about it, the more I realize that "automagically"
>creating the subnet-local scope zone id isn't going to work.
>Especially with multiple prefixes per interface.
So, this would be consistent with the suggestion that we
change the Addr Arch document to list subnet-local and lar
Dear Mr. Tony and all
I have two queries . Can you pls give me the details. and tell me about some
usefull document .
Questions:
1.
HOST1 and HOST2 are in different networks and having IPv6 addresses
HOST1 send one tunneled IPV4 packet to the
HOST2
(Before sending the tunneled packe
Anurag Uxa wrote:
> Dear Mr. Tony and all
>
> I have two queries . Can you pls give me the details. and
> tell me about some usefull document .
>
> Questions:
> 1.
> HOST1 and HOST2 are in different networks and having IPv6
> addresses HOST1 send one tunneled IPV4 packet IPV6 UDP packet> to t
18 matches
Mail list logo
