> Not necessarily an objection, but I'd like you to review my thoughts
> below (attached), which is mainly for the rfc2462bis work
> but has some
> relationship with rfc2461bis.
>
> In short, in my interpretation the prefix length for an
> on-link prefix
> can be
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 10:13:24 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This issue was discussed on the list and in the
> last meeting.
> There were two sub issues:
> 1. How does a host configure an address?
> 2. Inconsistency with ADDRARCH
> We agreed that (1) is out of
ok thanks, I'll put this text in 4.2.
Hesham
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:39 PM
> To: Soliman Hesham
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [rfc2461bis] Clarify the use of
Sorry, I forgot to reply to one point.
> I thought 2461 explicitly did not apply to point to point links or
> point-to-point like links such as cellphones, and other
> links that were NBMA
> (speaking of which, I suppose the actual NBMA technology has
> been worked out
> by now, so the sta
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 06:05:42 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> As far as 2461bis is concerned it is stated in the
> current draft that setting the M flag implies that
> DHCPv6 is used for address config. If the O flag
> is set, the draft refers to DHCPv6 for other c
James,
Thank you for the review.
> 1) Much of what is in the Section 11.1 seems a summary of
> RFC 3756. On the
> one hand, I suppose it is helpful to refresh the reader's
> memory, on the
> other, it could shorten the spec and make for less reading.
> It's just a
> stylistic issue.
=
-> > Hello IPv6:
-> >
-> > In RFC 3493 it is said AF_INET6 sockets receive
-> connections from IPv4 nodes,
-> > mapping their addresses to :::. I think
-> this behaviour is
-> > on by default. Although it is not explicitly stated,
-> section 5.3 indicates a
-> > way to turn off this behavi
Hesham,
Section 3 looks good.
On Section 11, I've got the following comments:
1) Much of what is in the Section 11.1 seems a summary of RFC 3756. On the
one hand, I suppose it is helpful to refresh the reader's memory, on the
other, it could shorten the spec and make for less reading. It's just
This issue was discussed on the list and in the
last meeting.
There were two sub issues:
1. How does a host configure an address?
2. Inconsistency with ADDRARCH
We agreed that (1) is out of scope for 2461bis
and is more relevant for address configuration
mechanisms.
(2) was discussed in the me
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 14 Jun 2004 12:52:34 +0200), Francis Dupont
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
>In linux it works fine though, I only nead one socket. I have not
> tested any other O.S. yet. This seams highly contraditory...
>
> => Linux is not conform too but the issue is m
In your previous mail you wrote:
In RFC 3493 it is said AF_INET6 sockets receive connections from
IPv4 nodes, mapping their addresses to :::. I think
this behaviour is on by default.
=> you are right.
Although it is not explicitly stated, section 5.3 indicates a way to
turn off t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:34:58 +0200), Stig Venaas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> > the behavior (relationship between AF_INET and AF_INET6 sockets/binds)
> > is not documented, so there's no standard. sigh.
>
> I second that. I would hope that also Linux allo
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:34:58AM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> I second that. I would hope that also Linux allows you to bind both
> AF_INET6 and AF_INET when using IPV6_V6ONLY socket option; I think that
> would be reasonable and logical behaviour. I don't know if that is the
> case though.
It is
As far as 2461bis is concerned it is stated in the
current draft that setting the M flag implies that
DHCPv6 is used for address config. If the O flag
is set, the draft refers to DHCPv6 for other config
parameters. RFC 3315 is also referenced.
Please see section 4.2, definition of the M and O
fl
Folks,
I'm formally addressing the issues left for 2461bis.
All the issues were either resolved or agreed on in
the meeting. The next series of emails are to inform
the list about the resolutions that we already agreed
on and see if there are any comments before I close the
issues.
The security
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 04:05:04PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> > Hello IPv6:
> >
> > In RFC 3493 it is said AF_INET6 sockets receive connections from IPv4 nodes,
> > mapping their addresses to :::. I think this behaviour is
> > on by default. Although it is not explicitly stated,
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:12:04AM +0900, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> Greg Daley wrote:
>
> > Hi Pascal,
> >
> > I think we're straying from the original topic...
>
> I think that infrastructure WLAN is point (not all statsions but
> only the base station) to multipoint one.
Radio, yes. Network, no
Hi,
Masataka Ohta wrote:
Hi,
However, with the current DHCPv6, it means that IP address should
be configured by DHCP with four messages.
I'm not so clear on your intention here, but I'd guess
that Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is OK, if there
is sufficient robustness in the (re)transmission
No objection to the proposed resolution, so I'll close
this issue.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
-
No objection to the proposed resolution, so I'll close
this issue.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
-
> Hello IPv6:
>
> In RFC 3493 it is said AF_INET6 sockets receive connections from IPv4 nodes,
> mapping their addresses to :::. I think this behaviour is
> on by default. Although it is not explicitly stated, section 5.3 indicates a
> way to turn off this behaviour using the IPv6_V6ONLY sock
Hi,
>> However, with the current DHCPv6, it means that IP address should
>> be configured by DHCP with four messages.
>
>
> I'm not so clear on your intention here, but I'd guess
> that Stateless Address Autoconfiguration is OK, if there
> is sufficient robustness in the (re)transmission of
> DA
22 matches
Mail list logo
