Isn't virtualisation fundamentally about making one machine appear to
be many, at least to exernal devices and systems? Other than the
management and troubleshooting of the virtual environment itself, I'm
struggling to see that many applications of exposing the "truth" via
structured node addressin
I don't see why you would need to do that. If a subnet prefix
is a /64, that leaves 64 bits for virtual hosts on that subnet,
each of which could participate in neighbour discovery. Why do
you need structure in the interface ID? (Of course, you could
certainly choose to number the virtual hosts co
Dear All,
With virtualization gaining momentum, would there be an option in IPv6 where
it has a mechanism to address a virtual host from the real world. Like the
128bit IPv6 address having [Network Prefix][Host ID][Virtual host ID]. For
the backward compatibility, the host part could be subdivid
The IP Version 6 Working Group (ipv6) in the Internet Area has concluded.
The IESG contact persons are Jari Arkko and Mark Townsley.
+++
A new Working Group, 6MAN, has been created to deal
with maintenance issues arising in IPv6 specifications.
The IPv6 WG is closed. This is an important milesto
Hi IPv6 WG folks,
Let me announce a new RFC on IPv6 Router Advertisement Option for DNS
Configuration (i.e., RDNSS Option).
Our authors hope that this new option will be useful in IPv6 networks.
I thank the contributors in Acknowledgement section and other people in our
IPv6 WG
for their g
A new IETF working group has been formed in the Internet Area.
For additional information, please contact the Area Directors
or the WG Chairs.
+++
IPv6 Maintenance (6man)
==
Current Status: Active Working Group
Chair(s):
Robert Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Brian Haberma
hi
i recently saw a thread on DHCPv6 and route advertisement, there is
discussion to enable it with a router in network but same can be done with open
system routing daemon like zebra quagga on any BSD OS (thats the case with
Anjali madam i guess)
you can enable route advertisement (
Aside from the need for the "more flexible" interface identifiers
(which I personally don't see yet), I'd like to clarify one minor
point.
At Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:13:49 -0400,
Brian Dickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we agree in principal on the objective. Where we don't agree on,
> is
