RE: Multiple DRs on a link

There is some relevant text in RFC 3484: 7. Interactions with Routing ... Implementations may also use the choice of router to influence the choice of source address. For example, suppose a host is on a link with two routers. One router is advertising a global prefix A and the oth

RE: ICMPv6 echo reply to multicast packet thread

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Jyrki Soini wrote: > > >The consequence is that the original Echo Request packet gets 100 000 > > >000 unicast Echo Reply messages back. > > > > I do not see anything wrong with this scenario. If I send an ICMP > > Echo Request to 1

Re: Appeal on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

On Mar 9, 2004, at 9:52 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: Yes, I appologise for accidentally resurrecting the fixed charge, by typing "is suggested" when my brain was thinking "was suggested." We did indeed all agree to delegate *that* choice to IANA. This is the part that bothers me. If we delegate th

Re: Appeal on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Yes, I appologise for accidentally resurrecting the fixed charge, by typing "is suggested" when my brain was thinking "was suggested." We did indeed all agree to delegate *that* choice to IANA. Brian Bob Hinden wrote: > > Charlie, > > >I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and > >shou

Question regarding router redirect

Hi, I have a question regarding IPv6 router redirect. Can an IPv6 router send a redirect for a particular route? Here is a situation: (It is assumed that no routing protocol is being run) Internet | R1 +---+---+--+-+

Re: reference dependency (DS to PS) (Re: [rfc2462bis] M/O flags and DHCPv6)

Hi Jinmei, Don't if it is concrete or not but Section 4.2.4 of RFC2026 states Note: Standards track specifications normally must not depend on other standards track specifications which are at a lower maturity level or on non standards track specifications other than referenced

RE: ICMPv6 echo reply to multicast packet thread

Hi Jeroen, Find comments inline. Regards Suresh On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Jeroen Massar wrote: >I guess that Jyrki's thoughts where more along the lines of: >"What if I send a simple ICMPv6 Echo Request with *your* source address". Aha. That makes more sense to me. But why should we point to just I

RE: ICMPv6 echo reply to multicast packet thread

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Jyrki, > Find comments inline. > > Regards > Suresh > > On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Jyrki Soini wrote: > > >The consequence is that the original Echo Request packet gets 100 000 > >000 unicast Echo Reply messages back. >

RE: Multiple DRs on a link

> So the question is: am I correct to regard this scenario as > broken and > say it should not be encouraged? => Apparently, yes. We had this discussion in nemo some time ago. It's unfortunate that this situation is not made clear in the current specs. I also think that nobody > pl

Re: ICMPv6 echo reply to multicast packet thread

Hi Jyrki, Find comments inline. Regards Suresh On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Jyrki Soini wrote: >The consequence is that the original Echo Request packet gets 100 000 >000 unicast Echo Reply messages back. I do not see anything wrong with this scenario. If I send an ICMP Echo Request to 100M nod

Re: Appeal on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Has there been any resolution as to a name for the new addresses? As I recall, there was some earlier discussion to this point. Thanks - Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob Hinden wrote: Charlie, I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and should be avoided. I trust that everyone commenting on this

Multiple DRs on a link

Hi, [This issue spans some WGs but it originates from here I believe.] We've had a small discussion in NEMO about multiple default routers on a link, and whether these DRs are allowed to advertise different prefix sets or not. Think of this small network: ISP AISP B \

Re: Appeal on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Charlie, I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and should be avoided. I trust that everyone commenting on this has actually read the current draft. A fixed charge was removed several drafts ago. The current draft does not impose a fixed charge for a prefix, but instead sets a requirement

Re: Appeal on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Hello Brian, I think that the fixed charge is a mistake, and should be avoided. To avoid hoarding, of course it would be good to avoid bugs. In case, that is considered impossible (sigh!) we can also demand that each address and/or prefix be accompanied by a certificate generated by IANA with a

Re: Appeal on "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Jarno, this is exactly why the fixed charge is suggested - to make the cost of bulk hoarding significant. And no, I don't want to imagine such a bug - I have more confidence than that in IANA and the organisations IANA delegates to. Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Thomas Narten wrote: >