On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:45 PM, Joseph Hyunwook Cha wrote:
I am assuming that (b) is supported by the provider. With this
assumption, packets destined to extra addresses can reach actual
destination hosts configured with these addresses via the ND proxy.
Yes, but this seems like an extraordinar
Hello, Ted.
Thank you for your reply.
My comments are below.
2008/11/4 Ted Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:40 PM, Joseph Hyunwook Cha wrote:
>>
>> However, if the service provider provides DHCPv6 service for the internet
>> connectivity of customer's hosts and is willing to giv
On Nov 3, 2008, at 6:40 PM, Joseph Hyunwook Cha wrote:
However, if the service provider provides DHCPv6 service for the
internet connectivity of customer's hosts and is willing to give
only /128 addresses without delegating prefixes, there are no other
feasible solutions than 6to6 NAPT for
Hello, folks.
I would like to introduce DHCPv6 proxy agent in a saparate thread.
The following is a rough description regarding the DHCPv6 proxy agent.
Any comments will be appreciated.
1. Motivation
Under the environments where classic bridge technology can not be applicable,
local hosts on t
Hello, Teemu.
Thank you for your clarification.
>>Since DHCPv6 server is also able to assign multiple addresses
>>to single client depending on the poliy, the host can activate
>>its server with the assigned address except the one used by
>>itself if it has
>>DHCPv6 server installed. Then, other
Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> Let's observe first that while there have been many proposal for variable
> length addresses, the length are always somehow bounded. For example, there
> will be an address length field in the packet header, and there will be some
> limited number of bits to encode
> > I can't see why IPv6 having variable length addresses would have
> > prevented people creating NAPT66 if /128s were allocated.
>
> Human hoarding instinct combined with old practices from the IPv4 days.
> You can see similar behaviour in areas where the PSTN uses fixed-length
> numbers (e.g. N
Mark Smith wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to why you think this might be the case?
>
> From what I understand, fixed length addresses were chosen for a few
> reasons (a) only CLNS had variable length addresses, verses every other
> protocol that didn't (e.g. applelalk, IPv4, IPX etc.), so there was
>
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis
Author(s) : J. Loughney
Filename: draft-ietf-6ma
Hi all,
Sorry for dropping the ball on this draft. I am issuing an update of
the draft today, and I have an issue tracker for this document, in order
to track open issues. You can find the issue tracker here:
https://trac.fit.nokia.com/ietf/report/1
Unfortunately, I will not be in Minneapolis,
Hi Joseph,
>Right as long as DHCPv6 server can assign only one address to the host.
>One more thing I would like to know is whether the host is
>allowed to configure multiple arbitrary addresses in the
>scenario of SLAAC plus ND proxy in the service provider's
>view. If other hosts in LAN conf
Hello, all.
I would like to share my interests on this issue and discuss DHCPv6
based solution more.
Solutions suggested by Pekka are below.
1) run DHCPv6 again, with a different DUID or client identifier (could
it get more /128's that way,
2) use DHCPv6 IAs to request multiple addresses? Then it
Hi Pekka,
>-Original Message-
>From: ext Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 30 October, 2008 09:26
>But, maybe there is an implementable workaround to this
>operational issue. Would it be possible for the host to
>either 1) run DHCPv6 again, with a different DUID or client
13 matches
Mail list logo
