On 30-mei-2005, at 22:23, Bound, Jim wrote:
Folks, the purpose of this thread is to define the purpose of the bits
for ND and addrconf not resolve how dhc works. We need to finish that
first ok.
The router is sending m and o bits now. What is their purpose and do
they work. If we change
We need to agree on requirements before we try to engineer solutions.
Here is what I've heard as requirements:
1) Ability to indicate to a host DHCP is not available on this link,
with the expectation that the host won't send any DHCP messages
2) Ability for a host to get all desired and
On 1-jun-2005, at 13:31, Ralph Droms wrote:
We need to agree on requirements before we try to engineer solutions.
:-)
Here is what I've heard as requirements:
1) Ability to indicate to a host DHCP is not available on this link,
2) Ability for a host to get all desired and available
On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 10:04, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
I think this draft is now ready for the IESG.
I have one issue with APPENDIX A. The direct mention of the on-link
assumption was removed from the appendix (from the second bullet item
1), but it is still implied by the text that remains. The
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Ralph Droms wrote:
2) Ability for a host to get all desired and available DHCP
configuration with a single DHCP message exchange
- if a host wants HCB, it sends an HCB request (Solicit) and
I have one issue with APPENDIX A. The direct mention of the on-link
assumption was removed from the appendix (from the second bullet item
1), but it is still implied by the text that remains. The text is:
1) If no Router Advertisement is received on any interfaces, a
On 1-jun-2005, at 14:25, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
4 Ability to do DHCP without having to configure routers
I'm not sure I'd draw that conclusion. I think the point was that
hosts
*MAY* ignore any RA hints and do what they are manually
configured to
do
Treating RA information that
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 12:16, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
= How do you know if you have no route to the destination?
You consult your forwarding table.
Could it not be on one of the links?
It could be if you have a forwarding table entry that points
to one or
more of your
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 14:11, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
The text does not say that you should do address resolution
before consulting your neighbor cache or forwarding table and do
on-link determination. Although, this can probably be made clearer.
So, I think the clarification needed is in the
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 11:29, Soliman, Hesham wrote:
It would be better than what's there now, but ideally, the
text should
just be removed entirely.
Doing address resolution on multiple links
can lead to ambiguous results. There could be multiple destinations
responding to
Mohacsi Janos wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Ralph Droms wrote:
2) Ability for a host to get all desired and available DHCP
configuration with a single DHCP message exchange
- if a host wants HCB, it sends an HCB request
On 1-jun-2005, at 18:24, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[always cool following up on your on posts...]
Because I fell in the middle of this discussion, and there seems to
be a rather substantial disconnect between my views and those of many
others, I decided to read up on earlier posts a bit.
There seems to be a slight inconsistency in rfc2462bis
regarding the uniqueness of interface identifiers on
an interface.
From Section 5.4:
.. new types of addresses have been introduced where
the interface identifiers are not necessarily the same
for all unicast addresses on a single interface
13 matches
Mail list logo
