>
> However, there is one other thing you should consider. In IPv6, we're
> supposed to use /64s for pretty much all subnets. So it's not
> inconceivable that router A sends a packet to one of those 2^64
> addresses belonging to the PPP subnet that _isn't_ an address for
> router B. A naive im
(B
(B > One thing we may have to care, however, is that the lack of
(B > implementation might be a barrier of recycling the spec as a
(B > DS, since
(B > we'd need to show interoperable implementations.
(B
(B=> Good point. It would be good to get some clarification on whether
(Bthis is an
> On 15 Apr 2004 08:13:33 -0700,
> Tim Hartrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Just out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "running, shipping
>> code that makes use of these bits." In particular, are you referring
>> to particular implementations that
>>
>> - invoke DHCPv6 on the r
(B
(B > I think that deprecating the O & M bits will be good.
(B > I'm not too worried about incompatibility, as most code
(B > do not support those bits anyway.
(B
(B=> I'm sorry, "most" is not good enough. If there is one implementation
(Bthat supports it then we have _no_ right to do th
Jinmei,
>
> > I believe that it is entirely too late in the life of this protocol
> > to be removing these bits. If there is in fact confusion over their usage
> > then the usage should be clarified. The original intent of this revision was
> > to clarify portions of the specification whi
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT),
> Tim Hartrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I believe that it is entirely too late in the life of this protocol
> to be removing these bits. If there is in fact confusion over their usage
> then the usage should be clarified. The original
Ok, what would break if we were to declare the O & M bit historic
and issue a BCP recommending not to set them in RA?
It is unclear to me what part of existing code would break
- Alain.
On Apr 15, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Tim Hartrick wrote:
I believe that it is entirely too late in the life of t
The suggested language seems fine to me (aka just say yes...).
--On Thursday, April 15, 2004 09:36 +0200 Brian E Carpenter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Suggested text for 7.0:
and PTR records for Local IPv6 addresses MAY be installed in the
global DNS at the option
All,
I believe that it is entirely too late in the life of this protocol
to be removing these bits. If there is in fact confusion over their usage
then the usage should be clarified. The original intent of this revision was
to clarify portions of the specification which were not clear
I am not sure whether this is a deficiency in this model. Currently,
even if M/O is turned off, the nodes which had triggered stateful
protocol will continue using it. Unless or otherwise you reboot all the
nodes in the link, you cannot make the nodes to switch to stateless
autoconf. This could be
On Apr 15, 2004, at 10:14 AM, Alain Durand wrote:
A good design is not one where there is no extra feature to remove,
not one where there is no new feature to add.
This of course should read:
A good design is one where there is no extra feature to remove,
not one where there is no new feature to
I think that deprecating the O & M bits will be good.
I'm not too worried about incompatibility, as most code
do not support those bits anyway. Also, it is mostly an
operational issue. All we need to do is to publish
a BCP saying essentially: "Do not set the O & M bits in RA"
and we are done.
In t
At 08:40 PM 4/15/2004 +0900, JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
[...] As far as I know, no host implementation supports the M flag.
Regarding the O flag, I've implemented the host side of the flag,
which invokes a DHCPv6 client upon receiving an RA with the O bit.
But I'
Brian,
At 12:36 AM 4/15/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
...
> Suggested text for 7.0:
>
> and PTR records for Local IPv6 addresses MAY be installed in the
global
> DNS at the option of the site to which they are assigned. It is expected
> that most sites will not make u
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2004 08:08:49 +0300 (EEST),
> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Note that the latter paragraph intentionally excludes the discussion
> of other kinds of limited-scope addresses from discussion, i.e., it
> only mentions why adding link-locals is bad.
Yeah, I know.
(B
(B > > FWIW, I really think that there is no point in going round
(B > and round again
(B > > in this discussion when there is no harm done by keeping them.
(B > > Removing them is not backward compatible for 2461 anyway.
(B > > So I recommend we leave them as defined.
(B >
(B > I s
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:49:53 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> As I just said in a separate message, one big question had
>> been raised
>> about rfc2462bis. It was, in my understanding,
> => The question you raise affects 2461 and as a consequence it affects 24
Hi all,
(B
(B> > As I just said in a separate message, one big question had been raised
(B> > about rfc2462bis. It was, in my understanding,
(B>
(B> => The question you raise affects 2461 and as a consequence it affects 2462.
(B> FWIW, I really think that there is no point in going round
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:46:46 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I also wanted to recall a conversation that taken place at the IPv6 interim
>> meeting about the usefulness of the 'O' bit ... however, if this
>> conversation is out-of-scope to the revision of RFC 2461, t
(B
(B > As I just said in a separate message, one big question had
(B > been raised
(B > about rfc2462bis. It was, in my understanding,
(B
(B=> The question you raise affects 2461 and as a consequence it affects 2462.
(BFWIW, I really think that there is no point in going round and round
> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:45:04 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I had intended only to make the suggestion that "stateful" be dropped from
> the phrase "other stateful configuration" (in RFC 2461) , because of the
> potential confusion between "other stateful configuration
Jinmei-san - I distracted the conversation a little with my posting ... I
think we have come to consensus as you describe in
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/ipv6/current/msg02280.html
and we can consider the question of "how clearly we should specify the
stateful address configurat
As I just said in a separate message, one big question had been raised
about rfc2462bis. It was, in my understanding,
whether we need the M/O flags for the "stateful" protocol(s) in the
first place.
(Actually, different people used different representation related to
this issue, but, in my
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 06:48:57 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think DHCPv6 ought to be cited as the protocol for other configuration
> information, as well.
> However, it seems to me the phrase "stateful protocol for *other*
> configurations" is a little misleading.
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>
> Thus spake "Brian Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Margaret Wasserman wrote:
> > > This would appear to be incompatible with the IANA considerations
> > > section that says:
> > >
> > >>If deemed
> > >>appropriate, the authority may also consist of m
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
...
> Suggested text for 7.0:
>
> and PTR records for Local IPv6 addresses MAY be installed in the global
> DNS at the option of the site to which they are assigned. It is expected
> that most sites will not make use of this option, but some sites may find
> benefits in
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:53:07 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Regarding issue 277 of rfc2462bis (Semantics of M/O flags), one
> controversial issue is how clearly we should specify the stateful
> address configuration protocol.
> The question actually consists of the
On 15-apr-04, at 9:17, Subramonia Pillai - CTD, Chennai wrote:
I am looking for “Router to Router” connected by PPP links (POS)
running
IPV6CP.
Since ND is a union of (ARP, ICMP Rotuer Discovery, ICMP Redirect and
others), which part of ND is needed (or has to be implemented) in both
Routers.
Th
Hi JINMEI and Hesham,
(B
(BI am looking for $B!H(JRouter to Router$B!I(J connected by PPP links (POS) running
(BIPV6CP.
(B
(BSince ND is a union of (ARP, ICMP Rotuer Discovery, ICMP Redirect and
(Bothers), which part of ND is needed (or has to be implemented) in both
(BRouters.
(B
(
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 06:17:18 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> From router point of view, global address can be get from
>> Configuration. So
>> I am still thinking, for router case do we need ND?
> => Do you think hosts connected to your router
> will need the i
30 matches
Mail list logo
