Hi Fred,
(to the IPv6 wg only)
It may be worth mentioning, before you get a huge amount
of IPv6-WG ire flamed down upon you that the IPVLX BoF
was discussing some related ideas at the past IETF 60.
It was not in all proposals that IPv4 were being used
as transport, nor were the v4/v6 implications b
Hello,
With Nokia hat off, I would like to announce a proposal for IPng
called: "IPvLX - IP with virtual Link eXtension". See:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-templin-ipvlx-00.txt
IPvLX uses IPv4 as an L2 protocol for network traversal and IPv6
as an L3 addressing protocol. It inserts an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In your opinion (no reasoning please), the rate limiting
configuration per-interface in the ICMPv6 spec should be a
1) SHOULD
2) MAY
3) Any of them is fine for you.
Bandwidth-based per-interface rate limiting is:
1) SHOULD
In other words, leave current text of [RFC2463],
Title: RE: [rfc2462bis #596] definition of "multicast-capable"
Unfortunately the links are not specified - 2461 says ND applies to all links unless the link specific doc says otherwise (see the Intro to 2461/2461bis).
So I suggest in place of..
The links on which the protocol used in this doc
Title: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-05.txt
(B
(B
(B
(B
(BOk - that is true - this is a non-issue here at present.
(B
(B
(B[After some study of the email trails on ULA, I can't see there was resolution of the discussion of how to handle address selection when ULA and truly glob
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004, Alex Conta wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>I think everyone agrees that per-interface configuration
> >>would be a perfect solution and will provide a fine grained
> >>control to the user. Is there anyone who disagrees wit
I also prefer it the way it is now, and Rajiv's proposed mods
look fine to me.
-Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> bs.de] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
> Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 6:37 AM
> To: Kristine Adamson
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
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 Node Requirements
Author(s) : J. Loughney
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-no
Jinmei
Upon re-reading the ULA spec, I noticed that ULAs are actually
of 'global' scope, so original wording is OK. Since 2464bis
applies to global scope addresses, we are set.
-vlad
JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 23:50:51 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Yes - the
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think everyone agrees that per-interface configuration
would be a perfect solution and will provide a fine grained
control to the user. Is there anyone who disagrees with
this ? (Pekka ??)
My objection to this stems from the fact
Quick question regarding the following sentence in Section 5.4 of RFC
2462bis-05.txt:
"Note that the method for detecting duplicates is not completely
reliable, and it is possible that duplicate addresses will still exist
(e.g., if the link was partitioned while Duplicate Address Detection was
per
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 04:04:57AM -0600, Kristine Adamson wrote:
> In this case, would it be better to update draft-3291bis to permit
> zero-length octet-strings for InetAddress objects whose InetAddressType is
> IPv4 or IPv6? We have already encountered problems with network
> management app
Well put John I had forgotten about that. So Tim this answers a lot of
your questions.
The bottom line is DHCPv6 is for stateful address configuration and a by
product is prefix delegation. How the market uses that is not our
concern we need to specify for both.
/jim
> -Original Message--
Tim &Jinmei,
(B
(B> > But we need to be careful too in that the Node Requirements draft is
(B> > just coming out of the oven and was baked using a different
(B> recipe :)
(B>
(B> That's perhaps true, though I don't think there will be a big gap
(B> between the description of the node-req d
> On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:17:19 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I disagree with this wording. In particular, the Solicit/...
> exchange is *not* limites to address configuration.
Yes, but regarding the interaction with the M flag, shouldn't the
Solicit/... exchange at le
(Changing the subject again...)
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:33:52 +0100,
> Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Following the discussions, it isn't entirely clear to me why we
>> could need to open this issue. I think that there is concensus
>> for keeping it as is (as described in Chris
Rajiv Raghunarayan wrote on 08/22/2004 02:48:25 AM:
> Greetings folks,
> [Bcced: Brian Haberman, Bob Hinden, Margaret
Wasserman, Bert Wijnen]
> During the IESG review of the UDP-MIB a small
problem was
> identified, resulting from the MIB being incompatible with
> the definitions in draft-3291b
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:16:17 +0100,
> Tim Chown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I'm (currently) leaning toward (2)
>>
>> 2. M=1 => Solicit/Advertise/Request/Reply is available
>> O=1 => Information-request/Reply is available
>>
>> As Ralph mentioned though, the idea of preventing configu
- Original Message -
From: Gu huaping
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 5:25 PM
Subject:
RFC:draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt
Hi;
yes, I have read this doc before.
Actually it really needs some update:)
Hon
Hi;
yes, I have read this doc before.
Actually it really needs some update:)
Honestly I still find some thing useful for my understanding
of Anycast Routing.
I know that Ipv6 use aggregation, but I am not very clear how
address aggregation works in Anycast Service? How anycast address
You
might want to look at this document:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-ipv6-anycast-analysis-02.txt
As I understand, it needs some updating.
John
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of ext Gu
huapingSent: 23
Hi all:
I have read RFC2373 where the authors give definition for
Anycast Address. But I still cannot find the detail ROUTING materials. Can some
one give me some hints to find some material relating to Anycast?
3x
Gu
huaping
--
Greetings folks,
[Bcced: Brian Haberman, Bob Hinden, Margaret Wasserman, Bert Wijnen]
During the IESG review of the UDP-MIB a small problem was
identified, resulting from the MIB being incompatible with
the definitions in draft-3291bis (draft-ietf-ops-rfc3291bis-06).
I've described the problem belo
23 matches
Mail list logo
