The IPv6 working group has two session at the Atlanta IETF meeting. They are:
MONDAY, November 18, 2002, 1930-2200 (Salon III)
THURSDAY, November 21, 2002, 0900-1130 (Salon III)
There are several topics that we feel are important to devote significant
meeting time on. These are:
- DNS
"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> Dan Lanciani wrote:
|> Let's say I have an Ethernet segment with 20 workstations
|> and 5 printers. I determine that two of the workstations
|> need access to the Internet so I rent 2 global addresses
|> from my ISP. Are you saying that at this point for
Hello all,
With regards to 3041, the Node Requirements have a MAY requirement.
We should add text, to better capture this, though. Mobile Nodes,
Servers, etc. may have different requirements, but how to quantify
this? So, I'd respectfully ask someone to submit text to cover
this.
John
Dan,
> Dan Lanciani wrote:
> Let's say I have an Ethernet segment with 20 workstations
> and 5 printers. I determine that two of the workstations
> need access to the Internet so I rent 2 global addresses
> from my ISP. Are you saying that at this point for all
> the workstations to continue usin
[Working group chair hat off]
A few comments on the Site-Local discussion that I did not see getting
discussed or proposed.
There was a reference made to networking airplanes somewhere in this
thread. If my memory is correct, the airplane industry did select an open
standard for airlines. So
Thomas,
> Thomas Narten wrote:
> What about globally unique?
This has three sides:
1. Will it appeal to the network administrators.
2. How easy can we make it for the user.
3. How many hurdles do we have to clear in order to get this going.
Please allow me to develop this a little.
1. Will it a
Please excuse the pun in the title, but I wanted to get your attention :-)
[Working group chair hat on]
I have been trying to make some sense of this discussion. The only obvious
conclusion is that there is not a consensus in the working group on how
site-local addresses should be used.
Some
Thomas Narten wrote:
For those MNs, we do not yet have a mechanisms
to allow for RFC3041 type home addresses. So there would be
no point in having them for the CoA since the HoA is always
visible for traffic analysis.
Specifically, I assume you mean that there is no way for an MN to use
tempora
> > => I took out the RFC text to make the mail shorter.
> > When I made that comment I meant to distinguish IPv6
> > nodes from MNs based on whether they implement MIPv6
> > MN functions or not. So when I said "stationary" I meant
> > IPv6 nodes that do not implement MN functions as de
"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I believe this would be fine with many, as I can't recall anybody that
|supported site-locals doing it for the site-locals themselves but for
|what they provide, see below.
It's more a matter of supporting scoping and address selection rules for
what they p
"Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Updating the node requirements and I came to this RFC.
> > > > This RFC raised a lot
> > > > of discussion during the Cellular Hosts draft - I wonder
> > > > what the consensus
> > > > is for the Node requirements.
> There are been other posts contributing this, which I agree with:
> - Not globally routable.
> - No registration.
> - No cost.
Good start.
What about globally unique? Not immediately clear one can get
uniqueness without some sort of registration. But the registration
might be fairly painless.
Thomas,
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> There is ample evidence to support the fact that the
>> customer (the network administrator) wants, if not
>> site-local, at least something that provides what
>> site-local does; and that they will continue using
>> them the way they see fit regardless of the fact t
On Mon, 4 Nov 2002, Michel Py wrote:
> >> Michel Py wrote:
> >> Then what was all this noise about restricting SLs to
> >> non-connected networks? This *is* a connected network.
>
> > Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > Because, I have been suggesting that we _change_ the
> > scoped addressing architect
"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I support the idea that a _subnet_ should not have both site-local and
|global addresses, not a site. Please also read what I posted earlier
|concerning deprecation.
Could you clarify this position?
Let's say I have an Ethernet segment with 20 workstations
"Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is ample evidence to support the fact that the customer (the
> network administrator) wants, if not site-local, at least something that
> provides what site-local does; and that they will continue using them
> the way they see fit regardless of the f
Margaret,
>> Michel Py wrote:
>> Then what was all this noise about restricting SLs to
>> non-connected networks? This *is* a connected network.
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Because, I have been suggesting that we _change_ the
> scoped addressing architecture rules to restrict the
> use of site-
> I think that this would be a perfectly legal network
> configuration under the current scoped addressing
> architecture rules, and it would result in outside hosts
> being unable to reach the control devices.
Then what was all this noise about restricting SLs to non-connected
networks? This *
> Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Yes, this makes more sense...
That's what it's always been, the "more" is irrelevant here
> I think that this would be a perfectly legal network
> configuration under the current scoped addressing
> architecture rules, and it would result in outside hosts
> being una
On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 05:35:03PM +0900, Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
> I'd like to get all hosts addresses in small network, can i get these
> addresses usign multicast ?
See http://www.join.uni-muenster.de/rfc/rfc2375.txt
-is
msg08710/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 07:06:21AM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> if you get a default route from three sites you are joined to, what
> are you going to do? or what if you get 2001:240::/32 from both sides,
> what are you going to do?
Same as when you have two int
Hi all,
I must say that I have not been keeping up with all of the discussions,
so if I repeat something that has been discussed already & solved /
debunked, I apologize.
> However, I don't see that it offers any special security benefits
> over putting the control devices on a separate subnet of
Title: 메시지
I'd like to get all hosts
addresses in small network, can i get these addresses usign multicast
?
Otherwise, do i reserve
specific multicast address for this purpose ?
Thank in
advance
-Daniel
= Soohong
Daniel Park
Hi Allison,
> Did I miss any of the big issues?
Yes:
What is the *overall* complexity of site-local as represented
by the set of your questions and the lack of consensus about
its functions shown by the 100's of messages in this thread?
Good point. It is necessary to consider the big picture
Hi Michel,
< Global Addresses ><-- SL addr -->
+-+
| ISP |:
+--+--+:
! :
+--+-+ +--+ +--+ +--+
| Router A : +--+ Firewall +--+--+ Firewall +--+--+ Router B +---+
++ +--+ | +-
25 matches
Mail list logo
