In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jari Arkko writes:
>
>I have a comment on the Zill draft as well as the Bellovin
>draft. The Zill draft lacks instructions for the host on
>what it should *do* with the information it receives.
There's certainly no reason that my behavioral description couldn't
be c
I think DHCPv6 getting M/O bits from CPE routers makes sense too?
Nothing prohibits it. It was just left out of scope during ND and
Addrconf discussions and to keep focus on the end systems as target for
RAs. There is lots of stuff a router could get from dhcpv6 server like
where are my HLR and V
My dhcp/nat box does same as Ralphs too and also in my basement :--)
/jim
>-Original Message-
>From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 2:09 PM
>To: Pekka Savola
>Cc: Bound, Jim; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE:
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 18:06, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> the key issue here is whether to mandate the above nastiness (multiple
> routing table for fec0::/10 space) for every node or not. i personally
> vote for simpler implementation, therefore vote for very limited
>
> to be clear: for outgoing packet, that should be enough. for incoming
> packet, you will need to have a mapping table of
> interface id -> link id
> and translate id accordingly and use "fe80::1%linkX" as the identifier
> for the peer.
Such mapping is very
>> >Technically, this is not really true since links are larger scope than
>> >interfaces.
>> Does anyone have an implementation today that has any special
>> handling for multi-interface links? If you want to send a
>> packet to a LL address, are you supposed to send it out all of
>> the interfac
> >Technically, this is not really true since links are larger scope than
> >interfaces.
>
> Does anyone have an implementation today that has any special
> handling for multi-interface links? If you want to send a
> packet to a LL address, are you supposed to send it out all of
> the interfaces
Hi Margaret,
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 14:40, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > For example, this mechanism would not work properly when a local
> > caching resolver is used. In this common configuration, ...
> >
> >What exactly do you mean by "a local caching resolver"? Do you mean,
> >e.g. a B
Hi Jinmei,
Thank you for your detailed feedback.
A few questions about your response... I'll try to respond
to the more substantive points later.
3.1.2.1 Problems for All Site-Border Nodes
Some people have commented that the same problems exist for link-
local addresses, but this is no
On Sat, 2003-03-15 at 11:38, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> While the draft says:
>
> If the destination address is site-local, the router will look at
> the interface on which the packet was received to determine the
> site-local zone in which the packet originated, and will perform a
I've finally read draft-wasserman-ipv6-sl-impact-02.txt. (I admit I
should have done it much earlier...)
(Just to make my position clear)
First of all, I'm not a fun of site-local (SL) addresses, and agree on
limiting the use of SLs *to some extent*. So, I'm not intending to
criticize the draft.
11 matches
Mail list logo
