(I'm going to concentrate on one specific issue, so I've changed the
subject.)
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:03:18 +0300 (EEST),
> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > > What might be useful is specifying with which kind of addresses
>> > > oDAD should be assumed: [...] Manual addresses
On 2004-06-09, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > [Pekka Savola wrote:]
> > >
> > > 3) IMHO, section 3.3 on Address Generation is largely redundant or downright
> > > inappropriate. It describes a few useful things, but also goes on
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 16:16:03 +1000,
> "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 3) IMHO, section 3.3 on Address Generation is largely redundant or downright
>> inappropriate. It describes a few useful things, but also goes on to
>> specify how to regenerate the addresses if a
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:19:24 -0700 (PDT),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> It seems to me that this specification allows (e.g.,) the prefix
>> "::/0" to update the lifetimes all existing addresses (which may even
>> include link-local addresses), since ::/0 matches any addres
> The only standard solution so far is to treat these networks as NBMA,
> i.e. on the router for ND. This is not satisfactory, because it places a
> lot of burden on the router and also because it leaves out ad hoc
> networks.
There is a middle ground since ND can be configured to have the router
> It seems to me that this specification allows (e.g.,) the prefix
> "::/0" to update the lifetimes all existing addresses (which may even
> include link-local addresses), since ::/0 matches any addresses.
>
> Is this the intended behavior? I believe not, and if not, shouldn't
> the specification
> >>I know ND is wrong. That is, I know it is wrong to have generic
> >>link protocols ignoring link specific properties and has been
> >>pondering on how such protocols suffer.
>
> > I think ND is not wrong.
>
> ND is wrong, because it was designed to be applicable to all the
> link types.
The
Hi,
unreliable flooding of control/routing packets is a long standing
problem in the MANET working group [1]. Recently the MANET working group
formed a design team that will tackle this problem among others that arise
when extending OSPF for wireless media. AFAIK, their design will be
IP-v
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Management Information Base for the Internet Protocol (IP) '
as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Margaret Wasserman and Thomas Narten.
Technical Su
Hi Pekka,
I'm not sure where this may lead, but...
- Original Message -
From: Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, June 8, 2004 11:05 pm
Subject: Re: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS
Server)
> Tailed down mailing lists to just IPv6 WG list..
>
> On Tue
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:07:41 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It seems to me that this specification allows (e.g.,) the prefix
> "::/0" to update the lifetimes all existing addresses (which may even
> include link-local addresses), since ::/0 matches any addresses.
>
Tailed down mailing lists to just IPv6 WG list..
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Mohacsi Janos wrote:
> ND is wrong, because it was designed to be applicable to all the
> link types.
>
> ND deployed multicast only because some ATM guy said NBMA was
> capable of not broadcast but multic
Hi Masataka,
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Dear all;
>
> The problem is rather generic than DNS configuration. But...
>
> I know ND is wrong. That is, I know it is wrong to have generic
> link protocols ignoring link specific properties and has been
> pondering on how such protocols
On 2004-05-31, Pekka Savola wrote:
> Below are my comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-optimistic-dad-00.txt.
PS: I've started an Issues List at:
http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/ipv6/fastho/opti_dad_issues.html
although it isn't very organized or complete yet. I'll be updating
it over the next few
I was hoping others would comment, but maybe not. Inline..
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Bob Hinden wrote:
> >Subcases 1) and 3) are too loose. Just make it 'IETF Consensus',
> >'IESG Approval', or 'IESG Approval with Specification Required'.
> >
> >We really don't need a land-rush for ICMP types/codes. O
Dear all;
The problem is rather generic than DNS configuration. But...
I know ND is wrong. That is, I know it is wrong to have generic
link protocols ignoring link specific properties and has been
pondering on how such protocols suffer.
I just recently noticed that WLAN (802.11*) is not very goo
16 matches
Mail list logo
