"Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > That is why it is stated as "are not expected to be in the
| > global DNS".
| > There will be issues caused by them being advertised yet not
| > reachable.
| > Would you rather see a stronger statement against inclusion in the
| > global DNS?
|
|=>
I think that the routing problems in IPv6 has been resolved.
Any comments?
Mr Avinash
Researcher in IPv6
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
On Fri, 9 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
> In addition to this, I'd also like to note that
> draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-issues-04.txt recommends limited-scope
> addresses not be in the global DNS:
>
> 2.1 Limited-scope Addresses
>
>The IPv6 addressing
Proposed Resolution: revise section 5.7 as follows.
5.7 Retaining Configured Addresses for Stability
An implementation that has stable storage may want to retain
addresses in the storage when the addresses were acquired using
stateless address autoconfiguration. Assuming the lifetimes us
Proposed Resolution: revise section 5.7 as follows.
5.7 Retaining Configured Addresses for Stability
An implementation that has stable storage may want to retain
addresses in the storage when the addresses were acquired using
stateless address autoconfiguration. Assuming the lifetimes us
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 11:03:41 -0700 (PDT),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 5.7 Retaining Configured Addresses for Stability
>>
>> An implementation that has stable storage may want to retain
>> addresses in the storage when the addresses were acquired using
>> stateless addr
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 14:00:06 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>but
>> that didn't seem to be the consensus of the WG.
> => At least you and I agree FWIW :)
> Perhaps I missed this discussion, but I can't see
> why they should be put in the global DNS. Unless
> p
> Why would they do nothing? Do you mean that they just advertise /64
> on the link and tell their customers, "just use ND-proxy, we don't
> bother with prefix delegation"?
>
> The ISPs would actually do something, though: they'd provide an
> advertised /64. One could wish for PD, but if that
Hi,
If draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-02.txt was recycled to Draft Standard,
there would be a block as it depends of Path MTU Discovery for IPv6,
which is Proposed Standard. (FWIW, PMTUD for v4 is DS.)
Are there any plans to revise PMTUD for v6? Arguably, the mechanism
could be better, but there a
Replying to an old message..
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > The problem is that with the same trouble it takes to fully delegate a
> > /64, the ISP could do a /48 as well. That is a good thing also, of
> > course. My worry is that the ISPs end up doing nothing unless they
> > have
> Okay, so how about revising section 5.7 as follows? In this proposal,
> we still have the new section, but I tried to limit the description to
> warnings based on experiences of existing implementations.
>
> 5.7 Retaining Configured Addresses for Stability
>
>An implementation that has sta
> That is why it is stated as "are not expected to be in the
> global DNS".
> There will be issues caused by them being advertised yet not
> reachable.
> Would you rather see a stronger statement against inclusion in the
> global DNS?
=> I think this makes sense. Something like "SHOULD N
Hi Hesham,
Soliman Hesham wrote:
Hi Brian,
One question/comment below:
> > (1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree. Is
> it expected
> > that whatever registry assigns these values will also
> populate the
> > reverse DNS tree? Or not?
>
> Given the follow-on
Hi Brian,
One question/comment below:
> > (1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree. Is
> it expected
> > that whatever registry assigns these values will also
> populate the
> > reverse DNS tree? Or not?
>
> Given the follow-on discussion of this point, how abo
At Thu, 08 Apr 2004 07:34:41 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
>
> Given the follow-on discussion of this point, how about the following
> replacement text for section 7.0:
>
> records (both forward and reverse) for Local IPv6 addresses
> are not expected to be installed in the global
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 : Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP)
Author(s) : S. Routhier
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I've completed my AD evaluation of
> draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt. My comments (attached
> below) include a few substantive issues that I would like to discuss
> with the WG before sending this draft to IETF last call. Thoughts?
>
> I have also
(Sorry for the long delay in response)
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 12:03:35 -0800 (PST),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Meanwhile, I have more fundamental questions:
>>
>> 1. it is probably not adequate to describe this in the body of
>> rfc2462bis, since it's a kind of extensio
18 matches
Mail list logo
