This draft obsoletes the OSI addressing format for IPv6.
Comments welcome.
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-carpenter-obsolete-1888-00.txt
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:18:40 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A New
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 11:20:53 +0200,
Francis Dupont [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Please let me check...are you saying something like this?
The proposed text says:
unqualified IP addresses cannot safely be used for IKE negotiation.
=
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:31:32 +1000,
Greg Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Basically, I don't have a strong opinion on this. As you mentioned,
this is, even if justified, a very minor optimization (in fact, I
even don't know of a router implementation that supports and does
unicast RAs). So,
(coming back to the root of this discussion...)
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 18:17:31 +1000,
Greg Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think that's one of the issues.
It leads to the idea that M|O = 1 can be used to invoke Information-Request.
So in this case, the policy shouldn't be called M policy
Some quick clarifications:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 18:43:04 +0100,
Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The confusion around stateful, 3315 and 3736 has been
discussed at length
elsewhere.
Sorry, I don't understand the point. Could you be more specific on
what you want?
I guess you
Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
Hi.
I'll try to clarify ... British reserve showing;-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 17 August 2004 14:45
To: Davies, Elwyn [HAL02:0S00:EXCH]
Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Alex Conta wrote:
You may have an assumption that the rate-limiting would have to be a
percentage of the interface speed. That's (IMHO) a bad strategy,
exactly why you describe: it doesn't handle fast/slow interfaces
appropriately.
This is a
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Fred Templin wrote:
You are side-stepping my question and twisting it into
a matter of what is currently done vs. what is best.
What is our goal here: to get IPv6 deployed in the right
way, or to preserve the legacy deployed IPv6 base?
No, I'm not sidestepping. I think
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Alex Conta wrote:
Depends on what you want to achieve with the rate-limiting.
I pointed you to the LINUX and CISCO examples. I expect to achieve
nothing different than the LINUX and CISCO implementers/users expect.
The one sentence text suggested for the ICMP specs
I will not respond to your other message as you seem to have a
fundamental misunderstanding of the context of the word send in the
rate-limiter specification, so any discussion about that would be
useless.
See the clarification below:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Alex Conta wrote:
Please read the specs
Hi Jinmei,
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 11:15:48 +0200,
Stig Venaas [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Why? In this (i.e., the latter) scenario, does M=1/O=0 simply mean
that (Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply and)Rebind/Renew/Request is
available but Information Request is not? Perhaps
I disagree with the host should use part of this statement. We reached
a consensus on this point in previous discussion. The consensus is the
M=1 flag indicates that the host MAY use the stateful protocol for
address autoconfiguration -- i.e., that this protocol is available
should the host
12 matches
Mail list logo
