I'm not sure we want to throw out the idea of 'scope'. Even without SL, two
scopes are architecturally enshrined in IPv6, link-local (addresses are
valid and unique only on-link) and global (addresses are globally unique).
You'll notice that I don't say addresses are globally valid.
Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even though
|most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
|constructive to keep them separate.
I used to believe this, but I recently came to the realization that isolation
Christian Strauf (JOIN) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|I don't think that it is about giving up what you need. With a combined
|v4/v6-capable firewall- and v4-NAT box you could easily achieve the same
|level of isolation of a subnet but without the restrictions for IPv6
|hosts that are forced on
Hello,
(Sorry for the cross-posting. This is because many people who are not
in the ipv6 list may want to join the discussion. I'll restrict my
further posting to the ipv6 list in order to avoid unnecessary noise.)
As asked by the IPv6 wg co-chairs, I'm going to update the IPv6
Stateless
Dan Lanciani wrote:
Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even though
|most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
|constructive to keep them separate.
I used to believe this, but I recently came to the
Folks,
Sorry for the cross posting. This is a heads up to let you
know that I'm updating the Neighbour Discovery specification, RFC 2461
as requested by the IPv6 WG chairs.
The updates are likely to include issues raised in the WGs copied
on this email. If you're
Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
|
| Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| |That said, there are multiple parts to the isolation issue, and even though
| |most NAT implementations combine them, the discussion will be more
| |constructive to keep them separate.
|
Ed Remmell wrote:
JinHyeock -
Unnecessary BU is not a huge problem. So you get an extra L3 handover. Let's
Up to some degree. We tested a link with two routers advertising two different
prefixes. Then an MN kept sending BU whenever a new RA arrives. But this, I think,
we'd better discuss at
Hi Folks,
I have some comments regarding this draft.
* The draft does not mention that it is RFC 2119 compliant and it is not.
Hence it is impossible to figure out if something is mandatory or not. For
example in section 2.7.1 page 17 A node is required to compute and join
What is the
Tony Hain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|Dan Lanciani wrote:
| ... Attempting to pigeonhole
| each aspect of that isolation (and offer limited solutions) encourages a
| divide-and-sweep-under-the-rug attack.
|
|Recent evidence around the IETF supports this claim, but in the real world
|where NAT is
10 matches
Mail list logo
