The idea is that developers must not hardcode any assumptions. The
reason they must not is because IANA will later delegate the currently
unassigned parts of the space to a purpose we don't know, including
possibly an extension to Global Unicast.
The proposed text reads as if the IANA
Thomas,
See my comments inline:
We don't know, and 60 seconds is a compromise value anyway.
But there
seemed to be WG consensus that a default timeout is
needed, since
otherwise we are licensing implementors to create hard
state. The authors
have been round and round
Well, this was only proposed for TCP.
I don't know what this refers to but the original message from Pekka
commented on draft-haberman-ipv6-anycast-rr-00.txt and I responded to
those comments.
That draft has this in the abstract:
Today, the use of IPv6 anycast is limited. This document
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Would everyone be happy with 2 minutes?
I would.
Brian
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 15:28, Erik Nordmark wrote:
Well, this was only proposed for TCP.
I don't know what this refers to but the original message from Pekka
commented on draft-haberman-ipv6-anycast-rr-00.txt and I responded to
those comments.
That draft has this in the abstract:
Sec 2.5.6 of the site-local addressing architecture states that:
Site-Local addresses have the following format:
| 111011 | 54 bit subnet ID | 64 bit Interface ID |
Site-local addresses are designed to be used for addressing inside of a
site without the need for a global prefix. Although
TCP has the problem that it simply can't be used with an
anycast address
without changing the protocol or somehow handling the binding
transparently on L3 (as in MIPv6). UDP doesn't have this problem; at
most the applications need to be changed to react correctly to peer
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 23:20, Hesham Soliman (EAB) wrote:
= Right, but I guess the latter type of application
would not be harmed by the extra security.
Performance?
MikaL
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng
On Tue, 2003-02-25 at 23:20, Hesham Soliman (EAB) wrote:
= Right, but I guess the latter type of application
would not be harmed by the extra security.
Performance?
= In theory yes, but I don't know how significant
it will be. I suppose we need to see a complete
Siva Veerepalli wrote:
| [ARCH] Site-local addresses are designed to be used for
| addressing inside of a site without the need for a global
| prefix. Although a subnet ID may be up to 54-bits long,
| it is expected that globally-connected sites will use the
| same subnet IDs for site-local and
The IAB has responded to an appeal from Robert Elz of the IESG decision
to approve the IPv6 Addressing Architecture
(draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt) by indicating that the document
should not be published as a Draft Standard [1]. Given that the revised
document is a significant
Bob,
Sounds like a good approach.
Hesham
-Original Message-
From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Follow up to IAB response to Robert Elz's Appeal
The IAB has responded to an
Bob Hinden wrote:
The IAB has responded to an appeal from Robert Elz of the IESG decision
to approve the IPv6 Addressing Architecture
(draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt) by indicating that the
document should not be published as a Draft Standard [1]. Given that
the revised document is a
Bob Hinden wrote:
The IAB has responded to an appeal from Robert Elz of the
IESG decision to approve the IPv6 Addressing Architecture
(draft-ietf-ipngwg-addr-arch-v3-11.txt) by indicating that
the document should not be published as a Draft Standard[1].
Given that the revised document is a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Pekka Savola
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:00 PM
To: Vijayabhaskar A K
Cc: 'Ralph Droms'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call on
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote:
Ofcourse, the requesting router can generate these values itself.
With DHCPv6 server sending T1 and T2 values, the requesting
router dont need to recalculate the values again and again..
Trust the DHCPv6 server, the values provided by it
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Pekka Savola
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:19 PM
To: Ralph Droms
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: WG last call on
This approach is ok to me.
Regards,
Jordi
- Original Message -
From: Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:01 AM
Subject: Follow up to IAB response to Robert Elz's Appeal
The IAB has responded to an appeal from Robert Elz of the
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Ole Troan wrote:
2) Multiple IA_PD looks unnecessarily complex. Are there any valid
reasons why it wouldn't be just enough to have only one IA_PD per
requesting router? (The option to and subsequent complexity of)
generating one for each interface seems like a
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Vijayabhaskar A K wrote:
The spec allows for flexibility in deployment scenarios by
allowing the ISP (through the delegating router) to control
the behavior of the requesting router, or by leaving the
behavior under the control of the requesting router
by
On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 12:48:27PM +0200, Mika Liljeberg wrote:
Is that necessary? IPv4 addresses can be returned in IPv4 Mapped format
if necessary. Just add some text explaining this. With our hybrid
IPv4/IPv6 stack implementation this would work out of the box.
Did I miss some announcement
21 matches
Mail list logo
