On 8/28/07, David Malone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 03:53:22PM -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> > >I would be curious how people feel about these choices if they also apply
> > >to (as they should) IPv4 source routing.
>
> > I think the problems, though overlapping, are com
On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:20 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
I don't like doing that sort of thing, but I like that both the DHCP
server and hosts are robust enough to handle it gracefully when I
do. A
few extra packets seems to me to be a relatively small price to pay
for
robustness and resilience.
I'm
Before we invent a new header, have we looked at ways were the current
legitimate usage could be solved by dedicated applications? Something in
the spirit of traceroute, maybe with a little cooperation from the
involved players in the spirit of UDP echo? Specialized applications
open a much smaller
Hi Arnaud,
> It seems the draft intends to update RFC 2460. Does it imply that RH4
> would be mandatory to implement in all IPv6 stacks? It's probably me but
> I don't see the point in adding complexity to IPv6 stacks (_all_
> implementations shipped), especially when the functionality has already
Hi Vishwas, Hi *,
Vishwas Manral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> Based on feedback from the group, we have written a draft for a new
> routing header. The functionality is the same as the RH0. The draft
> will soon be posted to the IETF site.
>
> The main differences are:
>
> 1. Maximum up
On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 03:53:22PM -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> >I would be curious how people feel about these choices if they also apply
> >to (as they should) IPv4 source routing.
> I think the problems, though overlapping, are completely different in
> magnitude. The problem with IPv4 sour
Hi,
Based on feedback from the group, we have written a draft for a new
routing header. The functionality is the same as the RH0. The draft
will soon be posted to the IETF site.
The main differences are:
1. Maximum up to 4 addresses in the header. (the number is based on
the reply I got for the
> I was unaware until just now that IPv4 source routing had *not* been
> deprecated by IETF already. I must have been misinformed about
> that. It's certainly not viewed with any favor among the circles
> I've been in most recently.
packets with IPv4 options wouldn't go far because
the last call was finished, but for a bit of nitpicking:
> I don't think that Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino's response to him was
> helpful. It's alarmist and incorrect to say that delaying RFC
> publication in order to get the wording right means that people can't
> deploy _today_ based on th
> > magnitude. The problem with IPv4 source routing is not AS SEVERE as the
> > problem with RH0.
>
> Also (and this seems to have been overlooked up-thread), we're in
> relatively early days with IPv6, so the installed base we have to go
"small" includes 22 million copies of MacOS X.
Folks,
The 2461bis document has been for a (long) while in AUTH48. This
is also affecting other documents that are pending for the RFC to
come out.
One of the reasons why this has taken so long is that a number of
issues were raised on the list, privately to me, and in IESG review
of some other d
11 matches
Mail list logo
