Hi Jinmei,
(B
(B> BTW: do we really need this level of detailed inspection to meet the
(B> two-implementation requirement for a DS? When I raised a similar
(B> question when we discussed how we should deal with the M/O flags in
(B> rfc2462bis wrt this requirement, I was told that we usually o
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, JINMEI Tatuya / [ISO-2022-JP] ¿ÀÌÀãºÈ wrote:
BTW: do we really need this level of detailed inspection to meet the
two-implementation requirement for a DS?
That is a matter of interpretation. Traditionally, the ADs have not
required them, but personally I think the spirit of
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:39:15 -0800 (PST),
> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> - a time that decrements in real time,
>> that is, one that will result in a
>> Lifetime of zero at the specified
>> time in the future, or
>>
>> - a fixed time that stays the same in
>> consecutive
[Sorry for the delayed reply]
liqunhui wrote:
hi Could anybody tell me why we need a 64bit fixed length interface
id? and do we really need a network that contains so many hosts?
The primary motivation as I understand it is to allow stateless address
autoconfiguration, not only for IEEE 802 links,
Hi Pekka,
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
..
>That approach is correct, but beacause the "two hour rule" applies to
>the on-link prefixes, it's not "immediately".
Not really. This two hour minimum applies only to stateless autoconf.
Cheers
Suresh
-
Pekka Savola wrote:
It is an odd "SHOULD" in that it doesn't add a requirement on
implemetors of
ND, but instead states a requirement on some potential other protocol
which
uses proxy NAs.
But I do think that MIPv6 is an example of this. Even with multiple
Home Agents
on the same home link, MIPv
> >> ==> 'or the source chooses to ignore unauthenticated Redirect
> >> messages' smells quite a bit from a leftover of IPsec
> AH times. Reword?
> >
> > Can't SeND nodes choose to ignore redirects that aren't
> protected by SeND?
>
> Sure. I was just referring this editorially, t
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, Pekka Savola wrote:
> I went through one implementation and have a couple of additional
> comments wrt suitability for DS/clarify.
>
> 1) section 6.2.5: when AdvSendAdvertisements changes to FALSE, you
> SHOULD send a final RA with zero Router Lifetime.
>
> At least a cou
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Erik Nordmark wrote:
A proxy MAY multicast Neighbor Advertisements when its link-layer
address changes or when it is configured (by system management or
other mechanisms) to proxy for an address. If there are multiple
nodes that are providing proxy services for
[This got stuck in my outbox]
> - a time that decrements in real time,
> that is, one that will result in a
> Lifetime of zero at the specified
> time in the futur
Hi,
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
That sounds good to me. Why do you want (c) to be removed? Is it because
there is no support for it (or) is there some other reason why reason (c)
should not be implemented.
There is not much support for it, it is too ambiguously defined to be
usefu
Hi Pekka,
That sounds good to me. Why do you want (c) to be removed? Is it because
there is no support for it (or) is there some other reason why reason (c)
should not be implemented.
Cheers
Suresh
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2005, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>>> If yo
12 matches
Mail list logo
