At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:18:20 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Tatuya first leaned towards the silent discard behavior because
he wanted text in 2462bis to match text in first para of section 7.2.5
of 2461bis. However, I see that as matching apples with oranges. The
At Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:06:21 -0400,
Ralph Droms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stig - you wrote At least as a sysadmin/user I would find it
confusing if the prefix length I configured would not be used for on-
link determination. I think it's more bad than good to try to
separate the two. I'm
On 2007-07-06 02:59, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
...
Why would you ever change PI space? The issue is changing PA space, and
that's something that may need to be done every few weeks as upstream
links go up and down.
Absolutely not. If you have 3 ISPs you run 3 PA prefixes all the time.
If you
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
In conclusion I'd like to propose to change the paragraph of
Section 5.4.4 from:
On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an interface,
node behavior depends on whether the target address is tentative or
matches a unicast or anycast
On 6-Jul-2007, at 00:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I hesitate to get rid or something because of this sole reason, I
think another answer would be to make paying attention to it just
optional for routing gear (or all things, honestly I really only care
about routing gear, and so does this
On Friday 06 July 2007 04:25, JINMEI Tatuya /
wrote:
At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:49:21 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you tested BSD by sending it an RA with no
PIO and M and O bits set so that BSD initiates
DHCPv6 ? Once BSD host is online with DHCPv6
Tatuya,
Thanks for agreeing with our suggestion to not silently discard the
advertisement. The new paragraph from you is still not complete because you
have missed the part when a match of target address is not found in the
receiving interface, then the NA has to be processed as per 2461bis.
On 7/6/07, Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6-Jul-2007, at 00:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I hesitate to get rid or something because of this sole reason, I
think another answer would be to make paying attention to it just
optional for routing gear (or all things, honestly I really
[Note that I am not replying out of a desire to engage in advocacy;
you should read this more as editorial summaries of discussions that
have already happened here when the questions you raised were asked
before.]
On 6-Jul-2007, at 10:46, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I recognize that a host
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an
interface, node behavior depends on whether the target address is
tentative or matches a unicast or anycast address assigned to the
interface. If the target address is tentative, the
At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:16:01 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for agreeing with our suggestion to not silently discard the
advertisement. The new paragraph from you is still not complete
because you have missed the part when a match of target address is
not found
Tatuya,
The new paragraph looks good.
I had combined matched tentative and non-tentative addresses handling
with a common error message logged, but I see your point that let's
handle the tentative by sending the handling to section 5.4.5 and handle
the non-tentative with an error message.
At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:00:10 -0400,
Bernie Volz (volz) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Though putting this into a list (1., 2., 3.) would likely make it
much more readable and parseable.
On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an
interface, node behavior depends on whether
-Original Message-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:21 PM
To: 'Vlad Yasevich'
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
Vlad,
Thanks very much for the review. Please see our responses in line below
against hs.
Vlad,
Thanks very much for the review. Please see our responses in line below
against hs.
-Original Message-
From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:39 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router
Hi Hemant
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Vlad,
vy
I believe that you are reading too much into section 3.1. That section
simply does a comparison to IPv4. It does not mandate anything and
doesn't not specify any specific beavhior. That is saved for later.
hs Totally agree with you. We
Thus spake Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2007-07-06 02:59, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Why would you ever change PI space? The issue is changing PA
space, and that's something that may need to be done every few
weeks as upstream links go up and down.
Absolutely not. If you have 3 ISPs you
re: http://sa.vix.com/~vixie/ula-global.txt, the internet-drafts@ staff
asked me to resubmit it with a -00 filename, which i did, and then spoke
as follows. so, if this WG weren't inactive, and we were meeting in
chicago, then this draft could not be discussed there. jfyi:
Date: Fri, 6 Jul
18 matches
Mail list logo
