On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:30:44AM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
Regarding reverse DNS entries ... there is a specific problem
with reverse DNS entries for autoconfiguration addresses regarding
update of the reverse entries by the client.
[ snip ]
There are solutions - disallow reverse DNS
Regarding reverse DNS entries ... there is a specific problem
with reverse DNS entries for autoconfiguration addresses regarding
update of the reverse entries by the client.
The portion of the DNS namespace into which the host wants to
insert its reverse DNS entry is owned by the network to which
I agree with kre - address configuration through DHCP (confrolled
by 'M' bit) and autoconfiguration through advertised prefixes
should be considered independent. An interface may well have
both autoconfiguration addresses and addresses obtained through
DHCP (and manually configured addresses, as
Date:Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:23:05 -0700
From:Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| So what if the M bit is set _and_ a prefix is advertized?
| Should the node give up its stateless autoconfigured address in favor of
| DHCP?
No, it should
13:57
To: Alain Durand
Cc: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki); [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next steps on the IPv6 Node requirements draft
Date:Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:23:05 -0700
From:Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| So what
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 03:56 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
It is generally harmless to own an extra address though, having the
statelessly configured one, as well as a dhcp supplied one should not
cause any harm.
Not sure. Two reasons:
- There may be filters in place, for example that only
-Original Message-
From: Alain Durand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 19 June 2003 17:07
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 03:56 AM, Robert Elz wrote:
It is generally harmless to own an extra address though, having the
statelessly configured one, as well as a dhcp supplied one
- There are reverse DNS issues. They may point to 2 different names or
more likely, the stateless autoconfigured address won't resolve to
a name, where the DHCP one will. As default address selection does
not (yet?) say to prefer the DHCP one, logs and/or (very)
Itojun,
I guess you missed the more likely part of my sentence.
I agree we don't have any standard wrt DNS registration of
autoconfigured
addresses, and the current deployment practices show that it is a pain
to do it either manually or with dnsupdate (you have a key distribution
problem),
so
could reference such a spec.
John
-Original Message-
From: ext Peter Bell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 18 June, 2003 02:09
To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Next steps on the IPv6 Node requirements draft
Along with removing DES from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For those IPv6 Nodes that implement DHCP, those nodes MUST use DHCP upon the receipt of a
Router Advertisement with the 'M' flag set (see section 5.5.3 of RFC2462).
So what if the M bit is set _and_ a prefix is advertized?
Should the node give up its stateless
Along with removing DES from the SHALL list, it looks likely that AES
will be added to the IPSec SHALL requirements, perhaps this draft should
include AES.
Peter.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I've updated the draft on 4 major points that were discussed at the IETF. Roughly
they cover
12 matches
Mail list logo
