Hi all,
I am a new researcher in mobile IPv6. I will like to know the
routing problems in IPv6.Bye.
Mr Avinash
Reseacher in IPv6
University of Mauritius.
Hi,
According to RFC, Interface Identifier being used to not only for the
Link-local address, EUI-64 global unicast address is derived from that.
Based on your input,
1. How one end will come to know the other end address (both link-local and
global unicast address)?
2. Will unicast routing prot
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:09:18 -0400,
> "Bound, Jim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 3315 supports both m and o. just a fact. that I know.
I'm not really sure about the intention of the above statement, but I
guess you made your opinion (fact?) for the following point.
>> - which protocol
This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
following document as an Proposed Standard:
Title : IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture
Author(s) : S. Deering, et. al.
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-scoping-arch-01.txt
Pages
(B (BOn Apr 29, 2004, at 10:29 AM, Tim Chown wrote: (B (B (BOn Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:12:02PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: (B (BOn Thu, 29 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] (B[EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H(B (Bwrote: (B (B- details of the relationship between each flag and protocol, (Be.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 06:12:02PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H(B wrote:
> > - details of the relationship between each flag and protocol, e.g.
> > whether we should mandate to invoke the protocol or we can just
> > rega
> and so the exchange should fail at this stage.
I just realised some implications of your post. As I wrote in my other
mail, the client indeed does not need to send IA options and hence the
NoAddrsAvail will not be sent to the client in an Advertise message, if
no IA options are used in the first
> I support Christian's suggestion; they should be just hints.
I also support this suggestion.
> No flag is going to force the node to run a protocol. More often than
> not, for implementation simplicity, I'd guess most nodes (especially
> where DHCPv6 is available), the nodes are going to run
> If the client does not want address assignment, is it okay for the
> client to send a Solicit without including an IA option? It's not
That should be possible, yes. The purpose of a solicit message is to
find a DHCPv6 server or a relay agent, there's no implication that it
has some immediate co
> One of Major Core Router vender is not advertising Interface Identifier as
> part of IPV6CP Configuration Request. The control packet from that box is as
> given below.
>
> 80 57 01 28 00 04 (no Interface Identifier options).
>
> Even I send Nak for this message with Interface Identifier o
in the enterprise "initially" they will run dhcpv6 because stateless for wireline will
not be used is my opinion. reason is control.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 11:12 AM
> To:
On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H(B wrote:
> - details of the relationship between each flag and protocol, e.g.
> whether we should mandate to invoke the protocol or we can just
> regard the flag as a hint and let the host decide if it invokes the
> pr
3315 supports both m and o. just a fact. that I know.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JINMEI Tatuya /
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 10:00 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: the protocols for the M/O flags (Re:
Hi,
One of Major Core Router vender is not advertising Interface Identifier as
part of IPV6CP Configuration Request. The control packet from that box is as
given below.
80 57 01 28 00 04 (no Interface Identifier options).
Even I send Nak for this message with Interface Identifier option,
Hi,
One of Major Core Router vender is not advertising Interface Identifier as
part of IPV6CP Configuration Request. The control packet from that box is as
given below.
80 57 01 28 00 04 (no Interface Identifier options).
Even I send Nak for this message with Interface Identifier option,
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:50:26 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hmm, despite the notice, people have started and explored the
> specific discussion on which protocols should be specified for the M/O
> flags and how we describe it...
> Please recall such a discussion wil
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:16:15 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I think the O flag (if we keep it!) should simply specify DHCPv6, with no
> implication about the way in which DHCPv6 is used.
> "Stateless DHCPv6" is simply a way to use some of the messages from the full
>
Sorry Jim, said "when DHCPv6 may not be secure", i.e. there will be many
deployments like now with IPv4 where authentication is not deployed by
the local administrator. Bear in mind there is very little use of RFC3118
DHCP authentication today for IPv4.
So key message is DHCPv6 can be deployed s
18 matches
Mail list logo
