IPv6 DAD Optimization is being discussed in DNA.
IPv6 DAD Optimization Goals and Requirements
http://home.megapass.co.kr/~natpp00/dad-optimization.txt
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[
Hello,
I am wondering if there are commercially availble IPv6 to IPv4
translators with high throughput.
I am also curious if the testbeds or commercial IPv6 access services are
allowing IPv6-only subscribers to communicate with IPv4-only hosts.
Any tip of information is welcome. Please let me kno
On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Andrew White wrote:
> I think it's a little more complex.
>
> Let's leave aside the daisy-chained NATs for a moment (which is a nightmare
> waiting to happen) and look at the home deployment scenario.
>
> Using 6to4, it is reasonably easy to build an all-in-one IPv6 home gat
Steven Blake wrote:
>don't think it is necessary to be unable to guess the date or
>relative order in which a particular ID was allocated, however.
Someone will have a reason to want such unguessability. That is
sufficient. This is one of those cases where making it work in 100%
of cases
Also clarify the processing of prefix options in
Router Advertisements with the L bit not set.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Soliman Hesham wrote:
Also you might want to consider the discussions on:
- Address resolution on p2p links
- Clarifying the meaning of the M and O bits
- Other MIP related discus
> Agreed. My point was more to make the WG aware of the issues raised
> in the SEND document. The issues raised in other places (e.g. MIPv6)
> are just as important.
>
Perhaps it would be helpful if the MIP WG would come up with a draft that
collected the issues in one place. I know some of them
I have some comments about Section 3.2.1 (Centrally Assigned Global IDs)
1. I don't understand the necessity for the requirement to generate IDs
consistent with [RANDOM]. The IDs need to be unique and
sufficiently "randomized" (one could argue how important this need
really is) so
Yes. Thanks for the data points, Hesham.
Regards,
Brian
Soliman Hesham wrote:
Also you might want to consider the discussions on:
- Address resolution on p2p links
- Clarifying the meaning of the M and O bits
- Other MIP related discussions
Hesham
> -Original Message-
> From: Pekka
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Brian Haberman wrote:
One of our charter items is to produce updates of
RFC 2461 and 2462 in order to progress them to Draft Standard.
As a part of that effort, I would like to bring to the Work
Group's attention, some work that has been done in SEND.
