Re: IPv6 - MAC multicast address mapping

Thanks for the reply, Chirayu. Indeed, this does not seem expensive (even for a hardware implementation...), but if it is agreed that this validation should take place, perhaps it should be documented in the Node Requirements, or in RFC 2464 and the likes which mandate those mappings. Regards,

Re: state-of-art SLs

The document mentioned below, has it been published? If yes please could you send me the link? (1) Publish an informational document that explains the issues encountered with site-local addressing and our reasons for deprecating IPv6 site-local unicast addresses.

Re: state-of-art SLs

When it has been drafted, it will be announced like any other draft. Brian (one of the volunteered co-authors) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards Technology, IBM NEW ADDRESS [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: a concern on bridge-like nd-proxies

Dave Thaler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Currently the IPv6 charter has a goal: Jul 03Submit Proxy RA to IESG for Proposed Standard. To be clear, the charter also says: o Develop Proxy Router Advertisement solution for prefix delegation and publish. This enables a simple site border

Re: state-of-art SLs

Date:Mon, 28 Jul 2003 15:11:01 -0400 (EDT) From:Scott Bradner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | humm - it is not all that often that we have said that 2/3 is rough | consensus in the IETF Well said. In another place, not all that far away, at

Re: state-of-art SLs

Hi Bhaskar, This document has not yet been published... Christian Huitema and Brian Carpenter have agreed to write it, and Christian did discuss its proposed contents in Vienna. We are hoping that a first draft will be available soon. Margaret At 04:55 PM 7/28/2003 -0400, Bhaskar S wrote: Hi

Re: state-of-art SLs

Thanks Margaret, I did not mean it as a negative statement. :-) Margaret Wasserman wrote: Hi Bhaskar, This document has not yet been published... Christian Huitema and Brian Carpenter have agreed to write it, and Christian did discuss its proposed contents in Vienna. We are hoping

Re: IPv6 - MAC multicast address mapping

On Sun, Jul 27, 2003 at 02:52:54PM +0200, Nir Arad wrote: Should a node (a router) check the validity of the mapping of IPv6 multicast destination address into the Ethernet MAC multicast address? Could there be a security issue? Exactly my question. To be exact: Assume the receiving node R

RE: IPv6 - MAC multicast address mapping

I can't think of a way this is a security problem - can you point this out please? With the exception that a DOS might be mounted by sending packets to the wrong MAC address that are later discarded... But you'll have to stop them at the source, not at the receivers, to prevent the DOS. There

Re: DiffServ field in IPv6

At 11:57 PM 7/28/2003 -0700, Nenad Laskovic wrote: I have founded in several rfc's (2474, 2780, 2553) that DiffServ codepoint field will be use instead of traffic class field of IPv6 and ToS field of IPv4. Is this change still accurate? yes.

Re: DiffServ field

Does anyone know is use of DiffServ field supported in some equipment and networks? At 11:57 PM 7/28/2003 -0700, Nenad Laskovic wrote: I have founded in several rfc's (2474, 2780, 2553) that DiffServ codepoint field will be use instead of traffic class field of IPv6 and ToS field of IPv4. Is