On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:13:06 +0200
Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15-aug-2007, at 12:15, Mark Smith wrote:
I disagree. For better or for worse, the notion of a subnet mask
going along with an interface address is deeply ingrained in the way
IP is implemented. Separating
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 02:16:31PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
Ole Troan writes:
If you delegate a prefix, then you route to the prefix -- best match.
Yes, but how does that route get in the table, and what next-hop is
set? You have to know your customer's address eventually.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 07:18:47AM +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
I'm don't think I'm going down it. You seemed to be questioning why
subnets were fixed length, I provided most likelyreasons why, including
evidence that the original design of IPv4, pre-classes, also followed
this model. I think
David W. Hankins writes:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:33:16AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
and it needs to be able to Confirm the use of
addresses, which it may not have allocated.
That doesn't make sense to me. The DHCPv6 Confirm message is for
confirming an address lease. If the
Wrt:
Either way: You need to know the customer's address. A DHCPv6 server
off in the weeds does not necessarily know what link local address the
client is
using (because it might change without notification).
If the client performed DHCPv6 with server, and the deployment includes
a relay
Wrt:
I'm sorry - this is a DHCPv6 protocol mechanic, something only a DHCP
geek would know.
The relay messages' 'link-address' field is central to the server's
calculation of the client's location (which broadcast domain
they're attached to).
Basically it's how you know which addresses are
All,
I have revised the charter for the proposed IPv6 maintenance WG
based on comments received. Please review.
Regards,
Brian
IPv6 Maintenance Working Group (6man)
Chair(s):
Robert Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 08:53:10AM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
I don't see how the server could possibly construct a valid Reply
message otherwise. It needs to include IA Address options, and those
The server does not include IA_*'s nor IAADDRs beneath them. It
only MUST include a
On 17-aug-2007, at 0:51, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
OK, Iljitsch. But hasn't Bernie already responded to this one? What if
prefix length is fat-fingered at the DHCPv6 server by the admin and a
length L1 is sent in DHCPv6 messages but the router RA sent a PIO for
the same prefix with prefix
