On 13 Apr 2005, at 21:06, Rob Austein wrote:
So the criteria here are:
a) Short-lived session (typically two packet UDP exchange, but some
argue that even a fast 7 packet TCP exchange is ok, so long as it's
fast);
For the record, I know of people who have distributed video streaming
services
Upon further analysisI agree with Joe. I was trying to meet Bob
halfway, but upon reflection have concluded that I was wrong to do so.
Anycast is complicated, and the complications are not specific to
IPv6. It really would be doing the world a favor if the IPv6 WG were
to get rid of the lang
Hi Bob,
On 13 Apr 2005, at 17:13, Bob Hinden wrote:
Arbitrary use of Internet anycast addresses is not recommended.
There
are known complications and hazards when using them in their full
generality [ANYCST]. Specific usage guidelines are:
1) Anycast may be used for simple query
At Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:13:34 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
> Here is a proposal (rough) based loosely on Fred Baker's proposal and
> subsequent discussion on the list:
>
> Arbitrary use of Internet anycast addresses is not recommended. There
> are known complications and hazards when using
Hi,
[Document author hat on]
Interesting discussion. Sorry for not responding to this thread, but I
have been dealing with a family matter and wasn't staying current with email.
I think there is general agreement that we can relax the anycast rules
specified the address architecture. The relev
Ok so we are pretty much decided on adding the
awareness text.
What about we add the following text to cover your
second point also (i.e. recommending the upper layers to
use the payload for validation).
===
6. As the ICMP messages are passed to the upper-layer
processes, it is possi
IPv6 WG,
This is a status update on the centrally-allocated ULAs defined in
draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01.txt. At this time the chairs believe it
is prudent to gain operational experience with the locally-assigned
ULA specification (which is currently in the RFC Editor's Queue)
before contin
This starts a 2 week IPv6 WG Last Call for advancing:
Title : Considerations on M and O Flags of IPv6 Router
Advertisement
Author(s) : S. Park, et al.
Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-01.txt
Pages : 13
Date: 2005-3-
At 13:57 11/04/2005 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that we should add some words to raise awareness
about the ICMP-based attacks. We could add the text that
Pekka suggested in the security consideration section and
provide an informative reference to your draft.
That'd be a good thing.
I
