Discuss comment from Allison Mankin:
Was there an analysis of the configuration consistency rule
(section 5.6) of accepting the most recent information, while
trying to secure both DHCPv6 and ND/addrconf (SEND)?
We seem to reach a consensus on this issue through a discussion at
Discuss comment from Allison Mankin:
Was there an analysis of the configuration consistency rule
(section 5.6) of accepting the most recent information, while
trying to secure both DHCPv6 and ND/addrconf (SEND)?
We seem to reach a consensus on this issue through a discussion at
I know this is late, but better late than never...
Overall, the document is good, but I think that the document would
benefit from slight tweaking w.r.t. to multicast. I.e., I assume that
an addressing architecture should be complete and at a minimum offer
pointers to the relevant pieces. I don't
Or, maybe it's the case that RFC 3307 is (now) the definitive
document? (IANA doesn't seem to have picked up anything from
there...).
Update (thank you google!):
http://www.iana.org/assignments/perm-mcast-groupids
Which is findable under IPv6 Multicast Permanent Group Identifiers
on the
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
This section only mentions the T flag, and not the P flag. That doesnt
seem right, since the P flag is clearly in use now and not 0. Was
there a concern about a possible normative reference? I don't think
there needs to be. Suggestion:
Old:
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 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
Author(s) : S. Thomson, et al.
Filename
Hello All,
This is a request to review and comment on the internet draft available
at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arunt-ipv6-multicast-filtering-rules-00.txt
The draft is written to explain a set of behaviors in IPv6 multicasting
scenarios. Since the behavior seemed to vary on
