Bound, Jim wrote:
much deleted...
...
My issue is about stateless and stateful being required features within
IPv6 for auto configuration. Both are needed and both are required.
I hope we all agree on this, using lower case. I think we have a genuine
problem here in they way RFC 2119 defines
I like Brian's suggestion folks.
/jim
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:29 AM
To: Bound, Jim
Cc: Pekka Savola; IPV6 WG
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-03.txt
Bound, Jim wrote:
much
Hi Jim,
I agree, I think it is a good compromise.
I like Brian's suggestion folks.
/jim
Bound, Jim wrote:
much deleted...
...
My issue is about stateless and stateful being required features
within IPv6 for auto configuration. Both are needed and both are
required.
I
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 03:13:16PM -0800, Alain Durand wrote:
Alternate scenario:
We ship our system so they configure IPv6 ON by default on all interface.
User install this machine on his v4-only network and now experiment
larger than usual delays to connect to his favorite servers.
DNS discovery remains probably the sticking issue for need for DHCPv6
in otherwise atatelessly autoconfiguring networks.
I agree that the mechanism should be discussed and determined in the DNS
WG (dnsext I presume). However, can anyone confirm if there is a slot
in dnsext in San Francisco for
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 06:45:15PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
No comments from the w.g. except by me and the author.
RA-piggybacking has a few different nuances, and I'm not sure if I think
the one proposed is necessarily the best one, but it's the
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
On Sat, Mar 08, 2003 at 06:45:15PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
No comments from the w.g. except by me and the author.
RA-piggybacking has a few different nuances, and I'm not sure if I think
the one proposed is necessarily the best one,
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:39:22PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
But then again, the above case hasn't been mentioned in any analysis I
recall (just made it up), so it's difficult to say. I certainly don't
feel there are a lot of issues with security in RA-based DNS discovery.
OK, so do you
It would save me from doing a legal like brief (precedents in the IETF
for my case here) and major work to the IESG too :--)
But it really can work this way and appease all.
Except those who would like to see Stateful dead completely and I would
argue they should not win this debate because
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Pekka Savola wr
ites:
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Alain Durand wrote:
For edification. I have a node on a work LAN that knows nothing of IPv6.
I
download software and configure my node to be capable of IPv6. I manually
configure my interface to support IPv6. I now ftp
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:04:02PM -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
For edification. I have a node on a work LAN that knows nothing of
IPv6. I download software and configure my node to be capable of IPv6.
I manually configure my interface to support IPv6. I now ftp to an IPv6
address. This is
There have been reports of problems with some Web browsers trying to
use only the v6 address.
this is due to the way mozilla is written.
mozilla did:
hp = gethostbyname2(host, AF_INET6);
if (!hp)
hp = gethostbyname(host);
Folks,
Mozilla is going to fix this. Part of the problem was we took so long
getting rfc 2553 updated to new RFC (its in the RFC editor queue now)
they used Richard Stevens old program model. This will be updated to
getaddrinfo and I agree with Itojun. Now as usual we await release
updates
Mozilla is going to fix this. Part of the problem was we took so long
getting rfc 2553 updated to new RFC (its in the RFC editor queue now)
they used Richard Stevens old program model. This will be updated to
getaddrinfo and I agree with Itojun. Now as usual we await release
updates :--) We
I agree with Alain that we need more input/discussion about using well
known addresses for discovery of some services. I think that that will
impact most of our networks' architectures.
I know that a lot of ideas have been already described in former DNS
Discovery Design Team(s).
It seems that
So for people who want to go dual-stack in their workplace
yet take devices
to IPv4-only networks that's the problem they face. Of
course you get what
you deserve maybe for the application writer trusting
presence of a DNS
record as an indication of connectivity.
This is for me
The IESG has approved the Internet-Draft 'Advanced Sockets API for
IPv6' draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-09.txt as an Informational RFC.
This document is the product of the IP Version 6 Working Group. The
IESG contact persons are Thomas Narten and Erik Nordmark.
RFC Editor Note:
The third
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Tim Chown wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 04:39:22PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
But then again, the above case hasn't been mentioned in any analysis I
recall (just made it up), so it's difficult to say. I certainly don't
feel there are a lot of issues with security in
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Bound, Jim wrote:
In addition the Enterprise wireline networks and IT are not going to
give up stateful control with servers and NAS in their networks for a
long time with IPv6 is my intelligence from my work with users.
Are servers and NAS configured with DHCPv4 today?
19 matches
Mail list logo
