On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:15:29 +0100,
Arun Prasad [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Some doubts on the socket api for Ipv6.
* When a IPV6 packet is received throught the interface recvmsg, how to get the
zone_id or scope_id for the received Ipv6 Addr. When the recvmsg
interface is
hello,
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2002 16:15:29 +0100,
> Arun Prasad [EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Some doubts on the socket api for Ipv6.
> * When a IPV6 packet is received throught the interface "recvmsg",
how to get the
> "zone_id" or "scope_id" for the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) What work has been done with regards to specifying an API for
setting the Traffic Class fields? Anything other than the IPv6
APIs?
There was draft-itojun-ipv6-flowlabel-api-01.txt (April 2001).
itojun may want to comment.
the API for traffic
Keith,
Keith Moore wrote:
My point is that I believe that a clean separation should be made
between global addresses and scoped addresses. We fully understand
how globals and link-locals work. All the others are still being
hashed out. If we make this break, the address architecture can
I simply cannot believe it is 1000 ms. Like I said lets get some
empircal data.
/jim
-Original Message-
From: Nick 'Sharkey' Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:24 PM
To: Tony Hain
Cc: 'Charles E. Perkins'; 'Pekka Savola'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re:
I do understand it exactly and you are 100% correct.
Lets do some testing.
/jim
-Original Message-
From: Tony Hain [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:19 PM
To: 'Charles E. Perkins'
Cc: 'Pekka Savola'; 'Nick 'Sharkey' Moore'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE:
Alper,
None of us working on this are even clear layer 3 handover will ever
work? Not sure if that matters does it? Are we talking about the
future?
Thanks
/jim
-Original Message-
From: Alper E. YEGIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:43 PM
To: [EMAIL
Yes, sorry.
jak
- Original Message -
From: Greg Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: James Kempf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Brett Pentland [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Thomas Narten
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Changing RS Reply Timing
James,
Thanks. I will ask our folks to do the same and see if we see the same.
Will take me some time.
/jim
-Original Message-
From: James Kempf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:41 AM
To: Bound, Jim; Brett Pentland; Thomas Narten
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
it has been quite silent around IPv6 node requirements lately.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-01.txt
Here are some comments on it to hopefully activate the discussion again:
- 1.2: There has been discussion on using the conformance groups.
I have several technical and organizational comments regarding this
document.
The document states:
Thus, it is recommended to implement also other mechanisms for
overriding this default, for example: manual configuration, L2
mechanisms and/or DHCPv6.
I think that it should be required (a
Jim,
None of us working on this are even clear layer 3 handover will ever
work? Not sure if that matters does it? Are we talking about the
future?
You mean Mobile IPv6? It works.
alper
Thanks
/jim
-Original Message-
From: Alper E. YEGIN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
Hi Jim,
Simply because of address spoof DOS we must at least permit DAD. The
cost is only at node-on. Now the timers and lifetimes administration
for a mobile network could be a problem but that is tunable. I believe
we are talking miliseconds. What we need are some tests.
I will ask our
Hello Jim,
Layer 3 handover definitely can and does work.
We have been showing smooth layer-3 handover for
voice for almost two years now, even with conference
demos and press releases, using Mobile IPv6.
Improvements have been done for QoS and several
other features which aren't the point of
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as a Proposed Standard:
Title : IPv6 Flow Label Specification
Author(s) : J. Rajahalme, A. Conta, B. Carpenter, S. Deering
Filename:
Very good comments; on one point..
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
d) Having an announcement protocol that the DNS resolver could
use to advertize the host route to the nearby router. Details of
such a protocols are out of scope of this document, but something
similar to [MLD]
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Options a) - c) should be sufficient to describe how the routing system
will get the information.
The three points you mention all indicate that you would run a
routing protocol to inject routes into the routing system.
Yep. Routing
Charlie,
Test beds are good. But no one is going to use it till we make sure it
works across many products. I would not put my shit on the line for
anyones implementation of layer 3 such as a soldier or hospital
emergency rescue team. Nor for IPv6 at this time.
I would like to see specs for
How can mobile IPv6 in the market without at least PS and LMM is still a
discussion which I believe is required and as you know I say use AAAv6
instead of overhead of Ipsec.
Now if you mean we can move in the market as vendors without the IETF I
agree but that has not happened yet.
/jim
The IPv6 w.g. chairs believe there are some important open issues that they
would like to see the working group discuss as part of the working group
last call on the IPv6 Flow Label Specification
draft-ietf-ipv6-flow-label-03.txt.
The current draft allows flow labels to be used in ways that
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Richard Draves wrote:
As it happens my implementation does do some caching - the equivalent of
a destination cache entry also caches the source address to use for that
destination, if the application hasn't specified a source address.
Yep, that seems like a sane approach.
actually I'd claim that we don't really understand how link-locals
work, at least not from the applications viewpoint. but I enthusiastically
support the idea of separating the work on globals from the work
on scoped addresses.
I believe we do have a good understanding on how
i believe we have some clues on application consideration to scoped
addresses.
I don't get the sense that we have consensus on this, because some
people seem to think that scoped addresses are appropriate for use by
general-purpose apps.
for instance, there's really no way that
Keith Moore wrote:
I don't get the sense that we have consensus on this, because
some people seem to think that scoped addresses are
appropriate for use by general-purpose apps.
for instance, there's really no way that an application can
effectively use
a scoped address in a referral
An implementation note which identifies the need for any multi-party
apps to have a scope determination mechanism before using SL is
appropriate.
no, I'm sorry. It's not. it's insane.
look, it's a separation of function argument. the network's job is to
do best effort delivery SO THE
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:15:50AM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
[Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote:]
1000ms is a long time by anyone's standards!
I simply cannot believe it is 1000 ms. Like I said lets get some
empircal data.
I was referring to the DAD delay, eg: RETRANS_TIMER from RFC 2461.
We
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:07:55AM -0700, Alper E. YEGIN wrote:
As far as I understand, people are not suggesting changing DAD, but instead
developing an optimized version of it. Both versions should be able
to co-exist, no interference.
That's exactly right, Alper. My reason for using
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 11:18:52AM -0400, Bound, Jim wrote:
Alper,
None of us working on this are even clear layer 3 handover will ever
work? Not sure if that matters does it? Are we talking about the
future?
We're pretty clear on this: we've tested it.
The significant delays are:
*
I think this draft is a poor idea, and that if people want an
autoconfig mechanism, then something along the lines of
draft-beloeil-ipv6-dns-resolver-option-00.txt would be nore sensible.
Mind one would still have to configure the router to generate the
above option in a RA, but then
Hello everybody,
after reading all the previous mails about this topic, I totally agree that the
proposed DNS discovery is not a perfect solution. However, it is *a* solution that
works.
I believe it is easy to miss the main point: We currently do not have any mechanisms
to configure a IPv6
i believe we have some clues on application consideration to scoped
addresses.
I don't get the sense that we have consensus on this, because some
people seem to think that scoped addresses are appropriate for use by
general-purpose apps.
for instance, there's really no way that
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 10:00:18 +0900,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I don't get the sense that we have consensus on this, because some
people seem to think that scoped addresses are appropriate for use by
general-purpose apps.
for instance, there's really no way that an application can
32 matches
Mail list logo
