>From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: 2006/09/14 Thu PM 02:26:39 CDT
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Endianness of IPv6 and payloads
>On 13-sep-2006, at 20:15, Bob Hinden wrote:
>
>> In my personal view, while this is a nice theoretical problem, n
hi to all
how to test the features and the perfomance of IPv6 ?
Regards.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
On 13-sep-2006, at 20:15, Bob Hinden wrote:
In my personal view, while this is a nice theoretical problem, no
evidence has been presented that anyone building an implementation
is confused about it. For example, were there ever any
interoperability problems because someone did this wrong?
hello all,
1.can you help me with theoritical concepts and terminology related to IPv6?
2.can you also help me with configuration's notes of transtions strategies
(dual stack and tunneling )
Cheers
- Message d'origine De : Elwyn Davies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc : [EMAI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all, as we all know Link Local addresses and communicating through them are
a must in an IPv6 environment. Without it Neighbor Discovery will not work and
so address resolution.
Our system enables one to set an MTU for and IPv6 address. So it is very much
possible
Thanks for your answer!
Shuki
-Original Message-
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 12:00 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan; sasson, shuki
Cc: harris, arthur; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; viswanadha, kamakshi; ipv6@ietf.org;
nathanson, daphna
Subject: RE: MTU o
> I wonder if the grouping together devices with the same MTU/MRU
> capabilities into different on-link prefixes, and then having a
> per-prefix MTU would overcome some of the per-neighbour MTU issues
> identified at that time.
Well, fe80::/10 is an on-link prefix and in some use-cases
there might
Don't forget though that tunnels are also links with link-local
addresses and there may be arbitrary physical link technologies
(with heterogeneous MTUs) on the paths between tunnel endpoints.
All links are required to support a minimum MTU of 1280 bytes for
IPv6, and this is no different for tunn
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:41:34 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi Mark, the setting of MTU to 1280 will not block larger packets from
> coming in (this will be limited by the physical device capability) but
> will force the packets sent through that IP to be fragmented to a
> maximum of 1280 size p
The safe seems to be more expensive than gold pot.
Why nobody steals the on-line banks daily? Perhaps its operational systems
are safer than others.
I suggest to fix the operational systems vunerabilities on the end.
-Mensagem original-
De: Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
Hi Ijitsch and Gunter,
I fully agree that DDoS avoidance is a very important issue,
if SAVA can successfully resolve the problem of source address
(based on existing mechanisms and some new mechanisms)
then other WG can work on top of SAVA to resolve DDoS, to design trust
identifier
(based on t
Hi Sasson,
It should be 2. the MTU of the NIC device on the link (assuming it is
properly configured). You can certainly use 1280 bytes as an MTU but if
you link can support substantially larger MTU, it is inefficient to use
1280.
Cheers
Suresh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all, as we all k
Thanks!
Shuki
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:02 AM
To: sasson, shuki
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; harris, arthur; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; viswanadha, kamakshi;
nathanson, daphna
Subject: Re: MTU on a Link Local Address.
Hi Sasso
Hi Mark, the setting of MTU to 1280 will not block larger packets from
coming in (this will be limited by the physical device capability) but
will force the packets sent through that IP to be fragmented to a
maximum of 1280 size packets. The only issue is that we are loosing
performance by setting
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:02:02 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all, as we all know Link Local addresses and communicating through them
> are a must in an IPv6 environment. Without it Neighbor Discovery will not
> work and so address resolution.
> Our system enables one to set an MTU for and IP
Hi all, as we all know Link Local addresses and communicating through them are
a must in an IPv6 environment. Without it Neighbor Discovery will not work and
so address resolution.
Our system enables one to set an MTU for and IPv6 address. So it is very much
possible to set the MTU also for the
DDOS avoidance is quite high up my list of priority also... I would be
additionally interrested in a mechanism that would identify the attacker
or identify sources of SPAM.
G/
-Original Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 3:56
On 12-sep-2006, at 16:31, Jun Bi wrote:
DDoS attacks is a cross-layer problems, so the DDoS prevention is
out of SAVA's scope.
So what's the use then? Non-DoS related source address spoofing is
easily thwarted by doing a return routability check that contains a
hard-to-guess nonce.
The
On 12-sep-2006, at 11:25, Pekka Savola wrote:
Ingress filtering is definitely to be recommended, and uRPF
filtering certainly does have its uses, but, at least in the
current state of the Internet, they are insufficient as a
protection for the routing infrastructure.
If this refers to ens
19 matches
Mail list logo
