On Aug 28, 2003, at 4:25 PM, Erik Nordmark wrote:
The conflict resolution protocol is just a way of letting the user
know
that a particular name is ambiguous in the domain that is currently
reachable. One of the users will then have to pick another name and
announce it to any other users who
On Aug 27, 2003, at 9:19 AM, Derek Fawcus wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 09:57:23AM -0500, Suresh Krishnan (QB/EMC)
wrote:
Hi Chirayu,
No. You cannot use fe81::/16 as a link local address
Of course you can.
Even though the RFC states that the prefix is fe80::/10 it really
should be
On Aug 22, 2003, at 10:03 PM, Bound, Jim wrote:
mdns or LLMNR are not widely implemented and if you bring your
implementation to one of the many test events for IPv6 where your node
must interoperate on the deployed implementations testing network most
nodes will not respond to mdns. I am sure
On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 6:56 , Keith Moore wrote:
Applications that perform referrals may fail, but I'm not aware of any
of these that are currently shipping and support IPv6. IPv6 is a new
beast, we don't have to be as concerned about applications making
stupid assumptions.
you have it
I realize that as an employee of a company that sells a product and
tries to implement standards the IETF blesses to solve problems, my
voice doesn't really count, but I wanted to toss in my two cents.
We have been using IPv6LL addresses with some success. The next release
of Mac OS X
YES -- Deprecate site-local unicast addressing
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct
