On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 09:55:49AM -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote:
> Both RFC 4113 (UDP MIB) and RFC 4022 (TCP MIB) have a process ID for
> each endpoint (udpEndpointProcess and tcpConnectionProcess).
>
> Was there any discussion how this can be implemented? Due to fork etc
> there can be more than
Thus spake "Rémi Denis-Courmont" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This assumes that one may use an ULA (IPv6) to reach a globally
routable (IPv6) address. In other words, that someone has introduced
some kind of NAT or transparent proxy in the middle.
That's not the only case, and hopefully one that will ne
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 09:53 +0300, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> right, but i guess it should be possible to define some heuristics to
> reduce the number of attempts since it is likely that several of those
> addresses have the same reacahbility status.
RFC3484 is a defined set of heuristics w
El 11/05/2006, a las 12:10, David Woodhouse escribió:
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 09:53 +0300, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
right, but i guess it should be possible to define some heuristics to
reduce the number of attempts since it is likely that several of those
addresses have the same reacahbilit
> So I have a dumb question.
>
> Why not:
> - use a DNS lookup that asks for all records (including A, MX, and
> )
Because you can't do this with a single DNS query. The "ANY" query
type will return all the records/record types cached for a given name,
but there is no guarante
>> The Correct Solution(tm) for this entire problem (IMHO) is for Pekka to
>> make sure that the gateway box for the client PC's throws an unreachable
>> error back to the hosts when it realises it can't forward it out to the
>> Internet. The client boxes should detect the unreachable and give up
