Hi,
I have a doubt regarding deletion of auto configured link local address. We
know that whenever a IPv6 node comes it comes up
with a link local address (addr1). Now say I manually configure another link
local address (addr2) on that interface (its possible if I am not wrong).
Now can I delete
Dear All:
Provided below is the *ratified *input received from the IPv6 community on the IPv6 over PPP spec.
The modifications will be made as per the recommendations.
* Relax the recommendation on the disabling of DAD, if the IPv6CP
negotiates interface identifier with the peer
"The
On Mar 18, 2004, at 8:47 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 18 March 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
The fact that there is a solution out there, which fits the
needs of some users, does not mean that there can not (or
should not) be a different kind of solution which would seem
to be much more appropriate
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Requirements for IPv6 prefix delegation
Author(s) : S. Miyakawa, R. Droms
Filename
Actually, I do not understand very well why we need a new prefix
delegation mechanism.
The assumptions to justify such work are the complexity of DHCPv6-PD
protocol and the fact that all the problems in the world are not
necessarily solved by DHCPv6 but I do not see in the thread some real
reasons
% On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
% > Thoughts?
% Been there, done that, gotten flamed about it :-).
Not flamed, simply pointed out that this was the method
used and documented for preliminary IPv6 address delegations ...
before the creation of the 6bone. The ex
On 18 March 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > Is there interest in expending any more of the IETF's resources
> > reopening a problem for which we have rough consensus on a
> solution,
> > published specifications and running code?
>
> You say that carefull
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Is there interest in expending any more of the IETF's resources
> reopening a problem for which we have rough consensus on a solution,
> published specifications and running code?
You say that carefully, but still giving an impression as if rough
consensus
For the IPv6 WG - let's cut to the chase. Is there interest in expending
any more of the IETF's resources reopening a problem for which we
have rough consensus on a solution, published specifications and running
code? We have lots of important problems that have *no* solution, yet;
let's move on
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Ole Troan wrote:
> >> Haberman's ICMP prefix delegation draft initiated the IPv6 W.G's work
> >> on prefix delegation. it pretty soon became clear that we were
> >> reinventing DHCP, so instead of developing a new DHCP lookalike, we
> >> decided to reuse the existing DHCP infra
Hi,
We are working on the subject since last year
and have a first prototype that does prefix delegation and global
address configuration
on a simple IPv6 network.
Here follows some thoughts that could help, I hope.
Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
This started from me looking at draft-bykim-ipv6-hpd-
Pekka,
> [Ralph:]
> .
>> The CLI sets up a pool of prefixes for delegation(1), associates the prefix
>> pool with other DHCPv6 server configuration information (2) and enables the
>> server on an interface (3). In this example, there is no customer
>> identification or authentication (which i
Reponding to both you and Ralph.
[Ralph:]
.
> The CLI sets up a pool of prefixes for delegation(1), associates the prefix
> pool with other DHCPv6 server configuration information (2) and enables the
> server on an interface (3). In this example, there is no customer
> identification or authe
Pekka,
> This started from me looking at draft-bykim-ipv6-hpd-01.txt, what it
> was before that, DHCPv6 + PD, a few proposals at v6ops for integrated
> prefix delegation, etc.. -- I couldn't help thinking, "there must be
> an easier way to delegate an IPv6 prefix in the simplest setups (e.g.,
> wh
Pekka,
We have some experience with the DHCPv6 spec that is useful in evaluating
its complexity. There are roughly 6-10 full implementations of
DHCPv6, including prefix delegation, address assignment and stateless.
We performed interoperability testing of 6 or so implementations last year
at TAHI
Hi,
We've discussed ND-proxy applicability in home networks for "informal
prefix sharing" (see draft-ietf-v6ops-unmaneval-01.txt). I thought it
might be good idea to try to move some of the discussion on IPv6 WG
list where ND-proxy is being specified.
Below...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Erik Nordm
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Shin Miyakawa wrote:
> > when v6 connectivity is obtained through a tunnel) -- DHCPv6 is way
> > too heavy-weight".
>
> "way too Heavy Weight" is not well-defined.
> Please explain a bit more how you decide this. Pekka ?
>
> When we dicuss about measurement, we should be math
> This started from me looking at draft-bykim-ipv6-hpd-01.txt, what it
> was before that, DHCPv6 + PD, a few proposals at v6ops for integrated
> prefix delegation, etc.. -- I couldn't help thinking, "there must be
> an easier way to delegate an IPv6 prefix in the simplest setups (e.g.,
> when v6 co
Hi,
This started from me looking at draft-bykim-ipv6-hpd-01.txt, what it
was before that, DHCPv6 + PD, a few proposals at v6ops for integrated
prefix delegation, etc.. -- I couldn't help thinking, "there must be
an easier way to delegate an IPv6 prefix in the simplest setups (e.g.,
when v6 connect
19 matches
Mail list logo
