Hi Elwyn,
I am trying to address your comments in the IESG
review of the ICMPv6 draft. Please see my comments
inline. Please note that I am on vacation in india
for a month. So I might not be able to respond to
your replies for a while :)
Sorry if the message is not very well formatted.
Hi all,
[Let me re-send this mail. Yesterday my post was returned because
of user-unknown.]
We've submitted a set of revised internet drafts about IPv6 source
address selection policy distribution.
Title : Source Address Selection Policy Distribution for Multihoming
Filename: draft-arifumi-
All,
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 13:32, Tony Hain wrote:
>
> That separation was a point in time implementation choice that is likely to
> change in other versions of the OS. The split stack implementation by itself
> does not preclude the right thing from happening through either a shim or
> direct
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> ...
> It is indeed in POSIX, but why don't admit that it is a mistake to have
> it? I though that it was a great idea too, until the Windows
> implementation came out that does not and cannot support it due to it's
> separate stacks.
That separation was a point in time impl
Christian Huitema wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I like SEND. My point was just that if we allow
"transparent" bridges at all, then we essentially allow the same
man-in-the-middle attacks that are also possible with ND proxy.
But doesn't the layering inherent in the SeND vs. IEEE make this rather
diff
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 17:48 +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
> > From: Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Really the only remaining portability issue is the default behaviour of
> > bind(::) (without any specific options set).
>
> In Symbian OS API, see
>
>
> http://www.symbian.com/develo
I agree with you (Jim): the question is philosophical: "is IPv6 a new
version of the IP protocol or is IPv6 a new protocol?". In the first
case it is natural to inject the IPv4 space into the IPv6 space and
ignore the version when it is irrelevant, i.e., in 99% of real cases.
Of course I am for th
> From: Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Really the only remaining portability issue is the default behaviour of
> bind(::) (without any specific options set).
In Symbian OS API, see
http://www.symbian.com/developer/techlib/v70docs/SDL_v7.0/doc_source/reference/cpp/Tcpip/
Bind to "any
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 05:39:15PM +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
> >My take of this is that they should remain in the IPv6 address
> >architecture. There is current usage and removing them would break other
> >specifications.
>
> I would agree with that concl
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 02 Feb 2005 16:02:05 +0100), Jeroen
Massar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> says:
> * That is under the assumption that Windows + KAME + Linux together are
> 'most', which could quite well be true with the number of XP's out there
> on the market and the fact that KAME
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 09:24 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> Using AF_INET6 as only socket and handling both v4 and v6 can only be done
> well if the implementation supports a hybrid v4-v6 stack.
> A pure dual stack (code path for v4 and code path for v6 see URL pdf
> below) is not friendly to use v4-map
>
> > I emphatically disagree
> > with Itojun, cmetz, et al referenced and we had this debate
> many years
> > ago, then again had the debate, and that view lost and we
> should not
> > revisit it again.
>
> You mean some people shoved the arguments away without having any
> background in the
Using AF_INET6 as only socket and handling both v4 and v6 can only be done well
if the implementation supports a hybrid v4-v6 stack. A pure dual stack (code
path for v4 and code path for v6 see URL pdf below) is not friendly to use
v4-mapped and I will assume all understand that on this list.
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 08:34 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> I am not speaking to you anymore on the IETF and I do recall you now
> from Brussels and your manners were the same there and your innuendos
> without facts.
Ahem? I *asked* you a simple question then: "What is the actual usage".
This is what
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 10:12 +, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:41:08AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> So in summary, my mind has been changed a little on mapped-addresses
> - in that although I wouldn't use them, they have a use in limited
> circumstances - but some ki
On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 10:41:08AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> We still have a chance IPv4 mapped to at least _deprecate_, that is what
> I mentioned in my other message, the usage of these addresses and to
> note that implementors should really be using separate sockets, which is
> also what get
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 03:45 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 23:25 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > > But, besides v4mapped being widely deployed on "vendor"
> > "production"
> > > shipping code bases, used today by applications,
> >
> > Please name these 'vendor's and 'applica
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 23:25 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> > I am not going to dive in here and increase my responses on this
> > thread and eat up my limited messages I will bombard this list with
> > ok, supporting the mail model less mail is better and
> keeping low on
> > Rob's messages lis
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 23:25 -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> I am not going to dive in here and increase my responses on this thread
> and eat up my limited messages I will bombard this list with ok,
> supporting the mail model less mail is better and keeping low on Rob's
> messages list each week.
Bett
19 matches
Mail list logo
