unsubscript, please.
致
礼！
Amy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
2004-03-05
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ie
Comments in line...
At 09:31 PM 2/27/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
[...]
*** regarding question c
I'd first like to answer this question. RFC2462 currently says:
Stateful autoconfiguration for IPv6 is the subject of future work
[DHCPv6].
(S
Hi, all,
A question on RFC3484,"Default addrss Selection for IPv6".
Page5 states " IPv6 implementation SHOULD support configurable address selection via a
mechanism .",
but Page6 writes "If an implementation is not configurable or has not been
configured...".
So does every IPv6 implementation
Please ignore previous mail. I selected incorrect mail to reply.
Sorry for bothering you.
--
SHIRASAKI Yasuhiro
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listin
$B3N$+$K$S$_$g!<(B
(B
(B
(BIETF IPv6 working group mailing list
(B[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(BAdministrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
(B--
> On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 10:12:41 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> According to the agenda shown at
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/04mar/ipv6.txt, we will be able to have a few
> more items. If this is the case, may I ask for a short slot about an
> API extension to get a list
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Bob Hinden wrote:
> >coz data from the client may be going thru a different device Y, which is
> >being blocked by the fw on that device. fw Y doesn't have the hole
> >to let the traffic go through.
>
> This won't be caused by the load sharing when the data and control are
> g
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 12:01:51AM -0800, Suresh Satapati wrote:
>
> Disagree. load-sharing or router preferences were/are never a general case
> IMO and hence i disagree with MUST.
I also think the security section of the draft needs a bit of deeper
analysis, e.g. for the rogue router-in-the-mid
Suresh,
coz data from the client may be going thru a different device Y, which is
being blocked by the fw on that device. fw Y doesn't have the hole
to let the traffic go through.
This won't be caused by the load sharing when the data and control are
going to the same destination host. If the da
On Thu, 4 Mar 2004, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Suresh,
>
> >coz data from the client may be going thru a different device Y, which is
> >being blocked by the fw on that device. fw Y doesn't have the hole
> >to let the traffic go through.
>
> This won't be caused by the load sharing when the data and cont
> I have a different set of experience where customers provision two or more
> parallel router+firewalls and wish to divide the traffic between them. The
> specifically do not want the other routers to be unused. They have
> installed multiple routers so if one fails they want the others (using
>
Jinmei - I mistyped and you guessed what I had intended to ask. Good catch
and thanks for the clarification.
Can anyone supply a direct reference to an explicit statement that "a DS
spec cannot have a normative reference to a PS spec."?
- Ralph
At 04:52 PM 3/4/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2
John - I agree that "the goal of 2462(-bis) is STATELESS ADDRESS
AUTOCONFIG." However, the bits controlling use of stateless/stateful are
also defined in RFC 2462bis, so RFC 2462bis goes a little beyond just
defining how stateless address autoconfig. Invoking the camel's nose
principle, and striv
Hi Ralph,
> John - I agree that "the goal of 2462(-bis) is STATELESS ADDRESS
> AUTOCONFIG." However, the bits controlling use of stateless/stateful are
> also defined in RFC 2462bis, so RFC 2462bis goes a little beyond just
> defining how stateless address autoconfig. Invoking the camel's nose
>
14 matches
Mail list logo
