Folks,
This is the last issue for the base api . We will send in final draft for
INfo RFC annouce from the chairs. The only change will be to add Jack
McCann as co-author to the base API current draft spec.
This request is out of scope for this API. It could be an extension to
the Advanced A
I agree. The triplet is necessary and will avoid state deadlocks for
sure. This is what I thought I agreed to at SLC as you suggest. I support
your change.
regards,
/jim
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:
> This is something that I was getting at. If BU processing is not
> implemented, then wouldn't all packets be routed via the HA?
And I find that unacceptable. Ship the BU and optimization.
/jim
IETF IPng Working Group Ma
Pekka,
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
> > I completely disagree with you. The entire notion of worrying about the
> > home agent address is overrated. The reason is what most people will be
> > doing is not needed to be secure anymore than when you call a friend
Pekka,
I completely disagree with you. The entire notion of worrying about the
home agent address is overrated. The reason is what most people will be
doing is not needed to be secure anymore than when you call a friend on
the telephone and tell them your bringing some beer over for the tele
sh
Pekka,
What we do here is build standards. That have no known bugs or
interoperability problems. What we don't do here is tell the market what
they can and cannot deploy. We will build standards that support stateless
and stateful mechanisms across the IPv6 spectrum, we will have
translation, t
Jari,
This is pretty simple really. Any app server as CN should support the
binding update and the mobile node should support the binding update.
Many of us are shipping it soon and it works. AAA will be used for
security till the IETF gets done analyzing this and if we have not
deployed zillio
Hi Margaret,
ACK on RFC. On clarity. Yep that would help.
thanks
/jim
On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Thanks for your support.
>
> >I do think this should be working group item per all the health warnings
> >in the spec that this is a **recommendation** b
e it in
> the style of a BCP, in any case.
>
>Brian
>
> Jim Bound wrote:
> >
> > Hi Margaret,
> >
> > Had time to read this spec in more detail. Very well written and good
> > integration of IP with 3GPP details for recommendations. Design team
&
Hi Margaret,
Had time to read this spec in more detail. Very well written and good
integration of IP with 3GPP details for recommendations. Design team
should be proud of this spec and it is very useful to both the IP and 3GPP
implementation communities which will overlap.
I do think this shou
Margaret,
I agree with John's input. I will have more before the IETF meeting.
I think the doc went way overboard specifying how IPv6 is used in a NON
IETF standards networking suite. If this is to be a working group item
then I want to be very sure the mission is to provide guidance NOT SHOULD
Brian et al,
A lot of mail but lots of it are repeating. The only way my change in
vote for "c" will work is if we do this below per Brian. But I presented
this case in front of the IETF WG at Minneapolis and folks did not want to
go there and Steve presented good counter arguments to doing it.
given alex's mail and christians I change my vote to "c". but I
would like to hear from Steve Deering at this point which could change my
vote again. but either we should progress soon or I think we heed Thomas
Nartens mail that we may just want to leave all alone for now and the bits
MBZ if not
thomas,
that is why if we can treat the flowlabel as part of tuple with src
address and identify a connection which identifies the forwarding path
the challenge is reduced. there is nothing needed but the header for the
look up and forward. I believe this can be made to work.
the traffic class
Alex,
> Jim,
>
> Jim Bound wrote:
> >
> > I think we should do b via an experimental draft. Go write some code and
> > see if it works in the test beds (e.g. 6bone, 6init, Eurosix, DoD). Then
> > report back. This will give us some experience.
> >
; Jim,
>
> Please reexamine.
>
> As a hint, note that MPLS, which is using *mutable* labels, is using
> RSVP-TE (extension of RSVP
> for Traffic Engineering) as one of the label distribution mechanisms.
>
> Alex
>
>
> Jim Bound wrote:
> >
> > Yes I w
thomas,
the flowlabel with src global addr can be used by the CAM or SRAM for
CATNIP or MPLS lookup.
Why differentiate types of use?
With b the Intserv model one gets a is my belief?
thanks
/jim
On Mon, 20 Aug 2001, Thomas Eklund wrote:
> Dear Brian,
> The intention is not to combine thos
Brian,
Just to note. You have 3 hard votes for b.
How long do we hold the voting booth open? I suggest one month.
/jim
On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Thomas,
>
> How can you combine a routing handle usage with intserv usage?
> These usages are totally disjoint. It's one
I think we should do b via an experimental draft. Go write some code and
see if it works in the test beds (e.g. 6bone, 6init, Eurosix, DoD). Then
report back. This will give us some experience.
I think doing anything to promote routing based on transport+port is a bad
technical idea and strate
Yes I would as a note. I want what we orginally called for and to make
sure nothing breaks RSVPv6 which uses the flowlabel too.
/jim
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Francis Dupont wrote:
>
> > In your previous mail you wrote:
> >
> >I think the WG needs to
We cannot define it now for MUST be zero. RSVPv6 uses its.
But because it is random I don't agree means that specific bits can't be
identified later if we need to.
When the flow is encoded at such a point in time specific values will
cause an error to the init app creating it (as I am a support
Folks,
In the next few weeks I will be updating the base api to be in accordance
with the IEEE wording. I assume you all have reviewed that over the last
month.
I see no consensus on sin6_scope_id. Hence, I will do nothing to alter
its semantics or syntax.
/jim
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, JINMEI
Hi Brian,
Good idea. I vote for b. As first input.
/jim
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I think the WG needs to decide once and for all whether the flow label is
>a) a CATNIP or MPLS-like routing handle
> or b) a QOS hint for intserv only
> or c) a QOS hint for intserv
also they implemented the model where AF_INET6 is used to for both v6 and
v4mapped.
/jim
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I was at U.S. Navy and other Department of Defense IPv6 seminar last week
> >as IPv6 Forum Chair of the Technical Directorate (wearing that hat) and
> >o
they were talking all the way back to rfc2133not just 2553. mostly
the get* stuff we kept changing.
/jim
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I was at U.S. Navy and other Department of Defense IPv6 seminar last week
> >as IPv6 Forum Chair of the Technical Directorate (wea
Hi Folks,
See attached pointer and please review. This is it folks. This will be
the base api.
I was at U.S. Navy and other Department of Defense IPv6 seminar last week
as IPv6 Forum Chair of the Technical Directorate (wearing that hat) and
other talks by IPv6 vendors shipping IPv6 products (e
Hi Mauro,
Sorry for late response. Also I could be out of it till July 16th going
on the road to do edu, evangelize, and meet offline with seriously
deploying IPv6 enterprises for a few weeks for Ipv6 Forum and U.S.
customer of IPv6. But will try to check mail. Don't wait for me to keep
talkin
This is not a problem just a solution .
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > Jim Bound:
> > > we did suggest that there be no default for v6only (in fact I
> > suggested
> > > i
I think having an appendix with issues and documenting them makes sense
too.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
> > and it should not but an implementation that does not
I "think" this is supported now.but I need to check..
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Mauro Tortonesi wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] $B?@L@C#:H(B wrote:
>
> > > On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 16:51:25 -0300,
> >
and it should not but an implementation that does not permit this is not
optimal. we cannot force this behavior on implementors either. thats why
it is not in 2553.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>
> >> => you can
> > => you can use it with the V6ONLY stuff.
>
> yes, but on rfc2553-compliant system you cannot have both an AF_INET
> and an AF_INET6 socket listening on the same port.
Sure you can. By using V6ONLY. Thats the point of the option. It is
just you must set it via setsocopt.
With V6ONLY you s
Maruo,
OK I will do solicit equal numbers who want it to stay the same.
And no one said that it was a good idea.
I think being late to the party does not give one more rights than those
that took the risk either. Add the two other authors on 2553 in favor and
I will go get 10 other implementors
that was very useful
thank you.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] $B?@L@C#:H(B wrote:
> The following is a summary of discussions about the semantics of
> sin6_scope_id (aka flat 32 vs 4+28 split issue) we have had in
this api was always based on bsd and still is.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Mauro Tortonesi wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
>
> > As far as the default it is you will get v4mapped on AF_INET6 unless you
Yep I am still with you on this one but if it ever happen we have to
permit a transition.
I think the argument was now. why do this to the programmer cause we
could not pick a default.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Dave Thaler wro
> Jinmei,
>
> > Just to make it sure, if you mean "accepting IPv4 packets on an
> > AF_INET6 socket as IPv4-mapped IPv6 addresses" by "the model in
> > 2553", Solaris does not follow the model, AFAIK. Also, NetBSD disable
> > the model by default.
>
> What aspect of this do you believe is not
We have passed the point of no return as far as real products are
concerned. A patch will not work on the OS's. Nor is it justified.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> > > >Depreca
I was directly speaking of implementations that make billions of dollars.
That is not Linux or BSD.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
> > we do not document product plat
ack...
yes this needs to be fixed soon... sorry I missed that.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Tue, 26 Jun 2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
>
> >we do not document product platform differences in the IETF.
>
> just to be clear:
> i was sug
h
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
> >we did suggest that there be no default for v6only (in fact I suggested
> >it) and no one on either side wanted that. thinking was even if one did
> >not get their choice then its better to have default for the users.
>
>
I know the ip stack inside and out. if we have to go to IPv10 it will be
a new IP layer protocol and by definition a completely new AF type.
This is not the case for IPv4 and IPv6.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ¡Hola!
we did suggest that there be no default for v6only (in fact I suggested
it) and no one on either side wanted that. thinking was even if one did
not get their choice then its better to have default for the users.
also this is not a holy war. that was a mis-characterization.
in fact it was about
IPv6 is not optional for 3GGP and I hope soon 3GGP2 and that is both sides
of the wireless coin requiring initial steps to IPv6. If any vendor don't
have IPv6 running in their products this year they will not be permitted
to bid on a large business opportunities.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.
Clarity is mandatory. What text exactly is not clear?
thanks
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ¡Hola!
>
> > Compaq implements it the same way.
>
> > But as one author NO this should not go in the spec. It is implementati
mapped addreses permit very large ISVs to treat all addresses as IPv6 and
one code AF. IPv6. And large ISVs tell their suppliers what they want
not the other way around. So if database vendor X (who causes customers
to use computers for their business) tells sun, compaq, ibm, and hp and
others
With all due respect I don't care about peoples grandchildren. I have
been doing this for 25 years. 10 years is tops anything lasts of this
nature. So I don't care about after 10 years.
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
we do not document product platform differences in the IETF.
but here is how the market will work.
the market picks a market leader. today that market leader for most of IP
stuff for "Servers" is Sun Microsystems (not all but most if you look at
market share). For the client its Microsoft.
If
This api is not going to standards track it is in informational RFC ONLY.
The real standard for the API will be done by the IEEE 1003 committee and
we are trying to get them to work with the IETF experts here.
They have adopted 2553-bis-03.txt style. Its a done deal.
What is open for discussion
AF_INET6 will always permit the catch only model because its been a method
for over 6 years and customers have ported to that model. We are not
getting rid of it now. That is not going to happen. The market has
spoken and the early adopter deployment customers will not have their code
broken.
t the option to v6only and no
v4mapped will go over AF_INET6 in any manner.
Thats the plan.
thanks
/jim
"Shout it out G.L.O.R.I.A." (Them [Van Morrison])
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Mauro Tortonesi wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
>
> > What programmers in
Hear Say, Hear Say,
Unless your going to name sources don't use them in debate.
Here is one that does use the RFC 2553 model as ISV. Netscape.
Here are a list of vendors that support the merge Francis spoke of with
shipping products:
Solaris
HP-UX
IBM AIX
Compaq True64 UNIX
Compaq OpenVMS for
If you want to port in an IPv4 and IPv6 independent manner you will use
the tools as currently specified. There is not protocol that will matter
besides IPv4 and IPv6 for at least the next 10 years. The debate is not
technical but where the future will be. This makes it hard. API folks
have de
Compaq implements it the same way.
But as one author NO this should not go in the spec. It is implementation
defined. The only way to force this is to discuss porting assumptions of
the market place. That is at best an art and not a science at this point
with IPv6. If someone does not do it t
Christian,
Excellent point sir. In fact the rate of deployment is increasing right
now. The curve is at at initial slope which is TBD but the market will
not wait for us to discuss this for two years and deploy .
/jim
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Christian Huitema wrote:
> I for one believe that
Rob,
Can you give us an idea of when the report will be out?
p.s. is deployed too fyi.
thanks
/jim
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Rob Austein wrote:
> The basic problem is that neither the IPv6 community nor the DNS
> community has reached a clear consensus on whether the extra features
> of A6 o
> > I challenge any notion of altering the long effort of A6
>
> may i suggest that it might be more productive to discuss the engineering
> need (or not) for it, and stick to principles not personalities?
principles will be easier once we see a draft for sure. comment on
personalities was
Matt,
I challenge any notion of altering the long effort of A6 but at the
meeting it was made clear to several of my questions that any input from
any directorate will have discussion and technical analysis by the WG once
the work is presented from the DNS directorate. So I let it go for now.
So
Chairs,
Great meeting. Look forward to the minutes. And Microsoft did a par
excellence job hosting us across the board.
thanks
/jim
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground
itojun,
Got it. I will down load to my laptop we really need this for IPv6.
WOrst case maybe we can get dave, brian, or rich to make it available for
attendees..
/jim
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> sorry that it is very late, here is a beta copy of our draft
OK folks. I dropped what I am doing and checked my issues they do seem to
be solved. I agree with Robert also on the getaddrinfo comment too.
good job Rich
thanks
/jim
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Robert Elz wrote:
> Standards track is clearly right for this doc. It isn't just
> polic
>
> Rich
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jim Bound [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 8:16 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Cc: Bob Hinden; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: W.G. Last Call on "Default Address Selec
sorry. Do not use site-local when sending to global if one has a global
source address should be the default.
/jim
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Jim Bound wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I may still object to it being a standards document. I read roughly the
> 04 draft. My main issue is that I do not
tandard-track/informational?
> i find the following on IETF50 minutes, nothing else (correct me
> if i'm wrong). were there any poll on mailing list made?
> http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html/minutes/ipng-minutes-mar2001.txt
>
> itojun
>
>
> ---
&
I would support deprecating IPv4-compatible addresses and compaq asked for
this 2 years ago :-) we were told no. but we did not have 6to4
either.
/jim
On Fri, 11 May 2001, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> > But what seems to be ambiguous is IPv4-compatible-IPv6
> > addresses.
A6 is already in DNS implementations. Its just a matter of using it. No
one can tell the market not to use it. Or use it. This is not an IETF
issue. Sorry strike my comment.
thanks
/jim
On Fri, 4 May 2001, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jim Bound writes ("Re: /A6 thing"):
> &
After much good discussion with Davkd Conrad and Paul Vixie, and
Christian/Matts view of this I believe we must implement what we have
regarding A6 specs from the implementation perspective. I will leave it
to others to tell us as we develop this if the specs are to be altered.
Assist with renumb
Antonio,
I don't know Linux at this detail. We should test this on all systems.
But if Linux is treating the mapped portion as v6 at the point of the send
and not stripping off all but the low order 32bits when the packet goes to
Linux version of the DLI then it will get wacked for sure. Also I
d are large enough to be
their own Providers.
I think we are in violent agreement. Other stuff I got to say I will say
privately thats between you and me.
thanks
/jim
On Tue, 1 May 2001, David R. Conrad wrote:
> Jim,
>
> At 08:30 AM 5/1/2001 -0400, Jim Bound wrote:
> >If your ar
Bill,
As you check this out further please make sure the early adopter systems
are in fact running the new product versions shipped from several of us.
If they are broken send in a QAR or Bugreport as IPv6 is now "product" on
a lot of boxes. We also have implementors list for this too.
thanks
So your saying this happens with router-renumbering? It should not with
ND. ND should not alter a peer routers address. So still why is this an
ND problem. ND and Router Renumbering are two distinct but compatible
specs?
thanks trying to understand,
/jim
On Tue, 1 May 2001, Bill Manning wro
Hi David,
> Jim,
>
> At 10:22 PM 4/30/2001 -0400, Jim Bound wrote:
> >With all due respect IPv6 is far superior to IPv4 for renumbering.
> >Have you looked in depth at Neighbor Discovery, Stateless
> >Autoconfiguration, and Router Renumbering RFCs. Then put th
Hi Bill,
> % With all due respect IPv6 is far superior to IPv4 for renumbering.
> % Have you looked in depth at Neighbor Discovery, Stateless
> % Autoconfiguration, and Router Renumbering RFCs. Then put them all
> % together. Nothing I mean Nothing exists like this in IPv4.
>
> And it w
2001, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Jim Bound writes:
> > But A6 will be shipped on the street and its a done deal.
>
> No, it is not. IPNG can terminate the A6/DNAME proposals right now.
> Users will continue to rely on , not on A6 and DNAME.
>
> > we believe it sh
bind is not a standard. its a public domain implementation funded by
public money.
/jim
On 1 May 2001, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Jim Bound writes:
> > But A6 will be shipped on the street and its a done deal.
>
> No, it is not. IPNG can terminate the A6/DNAME proposals rig
Itojun,
My take as implementor and deployer champion is I don't care anymore. No
one is going to use it till it works and thats a coding and performance of
implementation issue. We are working on the BIND issues of performance
now in the deployment community for IPv6. If necessary we will pay
Itojun,
Good point. I saw Fred's draft and reviewed it before it came out. It is
very good. I did not know if it actually got sent out? Hmm. I could not
find it. It is very good and also gives very good technical and scientfic
analysis of the problem?
Fred if your still with us on IPng is th
Dave,
With all due respect IPv6 is far superior to IPv4 for renumbering.
Have you looked in depth at Neighbor Discovery, Stateless
Autoconfiguration, and Router Renumbering RFCs. Then put them all
together. Nothing I mean Nothing exists like this in IPv4.
We have never said we solved all the
Folks,
Right or wrong. Paul's comment is valid. A6 will be deployed at least on
BIND (well it is now actually) and on Microsofts DNS is my read.
As one of the people to fund BIND future development and with others we
believe it should not be implemented for greater than 3 levels of
hierarchy
Randy,
You may be right you may be wrong. But IPv6 is going to start being
deployed so we will find all this out real soon. Should be fun. I think
we will be fine. You should come to one of the IPv6 summits and hear the
Advantage discussion of IPv6 sometime.
/jim
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Randy
Tim,
Good points. We have renumbering for the LAN. We have a way to renumber
from the border routers within a domain. This will get us started for
deployment. Baby steps are all we can take. If the IETF can extend these
to grown-up steps great. But we will start deployment now with what we
g
I think you need to add the frag header if pmtu < 1280 in the case you
mention. MPLS TE had to do this for IPv6. Alex Conta is coauthor of that
spec and maybe he can comment on how they handled that and it may apply.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: ext [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Steve and Bob,
First of all you have done an outstanding job as Chairs and the Leaders of
the IETF IPv6 Band since I met you at the Amsterdam IETF in 1993. You have
been a guiding light and not dictating force with the working group. You
have permitted new ideas to be presented and given all pa
Folks,
The IEEE Austin Group (XNET/POSIX type folks) will be working to merge the
base api draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553-bis-03.txt into the formal API standard
and update XNET 5.2. This will take till mid-June. Once that is done their
text will be merged into the above draft and go for update RFC
good idea. how about each person write short abstract and send to the list
not more than two paragraphs and one is better? I for one may not be able
to do that till end of week or on sunday night from hotel?
thx
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Steve Deering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
I think I can do it in 10. 2 slides. but will assume follow up discussion
elswhere. I would try to do it in 8 minutes!!!
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Steve Deering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday,March 14,2001 11:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECT
I agree with Erik. If I were given time to discuss the hybrid I could do
both the technical quick resultant from such a choice but define why I think
it solves the problem that the others do not.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Erik Nordmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wedne
this is premature because consensus is still split. but I do think it needs
to be on someones agenda to discuss to see what happens when we are all face
to face and in person. I think this issue will also spill over to a
potential interim meeting.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: ext D
Steve,
I would like to present the case for the hybrid. the limitations that should
be imposed when one is not using the immutable form. and a conceptual model
how it can be used for RIB and FIB processes in software to support fast
path in hardware. I would assume any of us would only have 10
I strongly object to Temporary Addresses being preferred over Public
Addresses in source address selection.
The reason is that most communications of IPv6 will not be on the Internet
but on Intranets. The default should reflect that reality.
And a web server should be using a public address tha
thanks Paul. OK. I would not use it to alter the boundaries imposed by
scoped site architecture which is a good set of boundaries. I may have used
the hammer to avoid 2 faced DNS though. Seems like now I should not do
that.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Paul Francis [mailto:[
I interpret the spec completely different than you and discussing it now is
a waste of both our time and the mail list. Also this should have nothing
to do with link local.
Paul can you shed some light on this conversation as Robert and I see your
draft solving different problems : thanks..
> Paul's draft won't do a thing towards allowing the address scope to
> not be a separate parameter (one way or another), which is what Alex
> was asking about I think. In fact, if anything, it finally removes
> that possibility completely. The only way the two could co-exist
> would be to re
Erik,
Hi Erik,
This is looking good. I like the middle ground you adopted. Need to read
again to check the Mobile node implications.
I don't see away around it but I hate to see us encapsulate yet another new
protocol for COA in MIPv6. I might suggest some wording in this spec that
using Glob
whoops FF05 below should have
been FF05 and FEC0. the new addr-scope-arch-02 draft takes care of this
too nicely. I am not sure in that draft using different routing tables for
each zone is best in ALL iimplementation cases. I can think of several
where it is not.
/jim
Alex,
I spoke to quickly I just read
Paul Francis's new spec. Could be this may get revisited after
all.
see:
draft-francis-ipngwg-unique-site-local-00.txt
regards
/jim
-Original Message-From: Bound Jim (NET/Boston)
Sent: Tuesday,March 06,2001 9:52 AMTo: 'ext Alex R n';
[
Paul,
This is good work and I hope we can revisit this issue now that you have so
eloquently documented a proposed solution.
I would support this if we must have the beasts.
This should be part of IPng agenda IMHO.
regards,
/jim
--
Steve, et al (authors),
This draft is very good. No issues from me.
>From the draft:
Authors' note to selves: The Working Group seemed to be
in favor of allowing all zone indices for all scopes to
have unique values in a sin6 scope id field, e.g., by
using the
Having the scope be part of the
IPv6 address or having other distinguishing attribute in the NLA (which is null
now) was discussed and rejected.
I was supportive of this
idea. But it does add an entire address space management part to
IPv6 site local addresses. My input is don't go the
Hi Vlad,
Yes it was removed at api-2553bis-00.txt so its been awhile. plus the
default is not consensus anymore and getaddrinfo changed things and xnet
took different path. I will remove the symbol. Good catch and thanks.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Vladislav Yasevich [mail
1 - 100 of 221 matches
Mail list logo
