All,
This starts the IPv6 WG Last Call for:
Title : Management Information Base for the User
Datagram Protocol (UDP)
Author(s) : B. Fenner, J. Flick
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-03.txt
Pages
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 : IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
Author(s) : S. Thomson, et al.
Filename
So, I think some time may need to be spent looking at RFC 2491
which is "IPv6 over NBMA". Another pertinent document may be
RFC 2590.
Brian
James Kempf wrote:
Yes, that's what I was wondering about. Considering 2641 was published in
1998, I would think that the NBMA situation would have been worke
Yes, that's what I was wondering about. Considering 2641 was published in
1998, I would think that the NBMA situation would have been worked out by
now. So 2641bis could include a reference to the RFC describing how to do ND
on NBMA links, or, if there is no longer a question about using 2641
direc
>
> >>Broadcast over the domain is a lot less reliable than unicast.
>
> > I'm not sure that the question is whether ND is good or poor, OSPFv3
is
> > good or poor, etc... All these protocols have proven their qualities
in
> > the context they were designed for.
>
> Though OSPF has its own probl
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:31:51 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> (I'd personally avoid using the magic number of 64, but anyway)
> => Why? It's a reality, at least for 2462.
Even RFC2462 says the length is "typically" 64 bits, and does not
assume the number as an in
Pascal;
>>Broadcast over the domain is a lot less reliable than unicast.
> I'm not sure that the question is whether ND is good or poor, OSPFv3 is
> good or poor, etc... All these protocols have proven their qualities in
> the context they were designed for.
Though OSPF has its own problems, let
> (I'd personally avoid using the magic number of 64, but anyway)
=> Why? It's a reality, at least for 2462.
>
> In that case, the host can configure the on-link prefix but cannot
> configure an address by the stateless autoconfiguration mechanism.
> So, in this cas
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 01:03:36 -0400,
> "Soliman Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 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
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Masataka Ohta
> Sent: mardi 15 juin 2004 06:06
> To: Ignatios Souvatzis
> Cc: Jari Arkko; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); IPv6 WG; Pekka Savola; Greg
Daley
> Subject: Re: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration
Ignatios Souvatzis;
>>>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. The base station creates the illusion of a
> broadcast domain.
And the problem is
Greg;
Our goal is to let IP run over (almost) all the link types
as efficiently as possible.
Right?
>> DAD?
> Duplicate Address Detection (from rfc2462).
I know. But, we are talking about address resolution, not DAD.
>> Address resolution of ND gives up after three NSes and
>> is not robust.
12 matches
Mail list logo
