On 2009-02-19 12:15, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
...
> Avoid prefix-per-host address waste: were it known a /56 could be used
> to SLAAC an Ethernet interface - it would be very hard to claim there
> are enough /56 prefixes to accomodate one for each mobile. Or, that is
> the situation today with /
Hi Alex,
On 18/02/09 06:01 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
On 18/02/09 04:38 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Because the specification is written that way. From a pure
technical point of view, we could have introduced a new rule, e.g.,
"if the length of a prefix with A
Following up my own post, detailing what I meant, and limiting my email
sending rate right after :-)
Saving wireless bandwidth: allow to send only one PIO in the RA instead
of two. This may be useful for links with limited bandwidth which
imitate the Ethernet API. (e.g. 802.15.4, 802.16).
Avoid
Mark Smith a écrit :
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:16:33 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
Mark Smith a écrit :
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:03:54 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
Dunn, Jeffrey H. a écrit :
Alex,
While I believe that Suresh is correct in the case of RFC
2464, I am very interested in
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 a écrit :
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:37 +0100, Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
- prefix P::/56 with L=1, A=0, and - prefix P::/64 with L=0, A=1
if the receiving host is fully compliant with RFC4861 and 4862.
Excuse my ignorance but I don't see why putting two prefixes in the
RA
Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
On 18/02/09 04:38 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Because the specification is written that way. From a pure
technical point of view, we could have introduced a new rule, e.g.,
"if the length of a prefix with A=1 is less than 128 - length of
IID, the host should contin
On 18/02/09 04:38 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Because the specification is written that way. From a pure technical
point of view, we could have introduced a new rule, e.g., "if the
length of a prefix with A=1 is less than 128 - length of IID, the host
should continue configuring an address w
On 2009-02-19 10:38, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:37 +0100,
> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
>>> - prefix P::/56 with L=1, A=0, and
>>> - prefix P::/64 with L=0, A=1
>>>
>>> if the receiving host is fully compliant with RFC4861 and 4862.
>> Excuse my ignorance but I don't
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:16:33 +0100
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Mark Smith a écrit :
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:03:54 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dunn, Jeffrey H. a écrit :
> >>> Alex,
> >>>
> >>> While I believe that Suresh is correct in the case of RFC 2464, I
> >>> am very i
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:54:37 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> > - prefix P::/56 with L=1, A=0, and
> > - prefix P::/64 with L=0, A=1
> >
> > if the receiving host is fully compliant with RFC4861 and 4862.
>
> Excuse my ignorance but I don't see why putting two prefixes in the RA
> when one i
Mark Smith a écrit :
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:03:54 +0100 Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
Dunn, Jeffrey H. a écrit :
Alex,
While I believe that Suresh is correct in the case of RFC 2464, I
am very interested in the Ethernet implementation that supports
non-64 bit IID. Do you have a reference for thi
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 a écrit :
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:20:14 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I'd think it simply breaks the standard, but I actually don't
understand the point of the question in the first place. Maybe you
want to explain what you're going to do with the additional 8bit
space,
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:03:54 +0100
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Dunn, Jeffrey H. a écrit :
> > Alex,
> >
> > While I believe that Suresh is correct in the case of RFC 2464, I am
> > very interested in the Ethernet implementation that supports non-64
> > bit IID. Do you have a reference for this
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:20:14 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> > I'd think it simply breaks the standard, but I actually don't
> > understand the point of the question in the first place. Maybe you
> > want to explain what you're going to do with the additional 8bit
> > space, and then ask othe
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 a écrit :
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:46:29 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I understand much discussion was about length of the IID.
But this is solely about the prefix, which could be shorter than 64.
Keep same IID length 64.
That's effectively the same thing - if you use
Dunn, Jeffrey H. a écrit :
Alex,
While I believe that Suresh is correct in the case of RFC 2464, I am
very interested in the Ethernet implementation that supports non-64
bit IID. Do you have a reference for this implementation? Further,
are you interested in supporting non-64 bit network pref
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:46:29 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> I understand much discussion was about length of the IID.
>
> But this is solely about the prefix, which could be shorter than 64.
> Keep same IID length 64.
That's effectively the same thing - if you use a shorter prefix to
identi
Suresh Krishnan a écrit :
Hi Alex,
On 18/02/09 11:56 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Dear 6MANers,
May I comment on two things about rfc2464 IPv6 over EThernet.
4. Stateless Autoconfiguration
I think a better title for this would be "Forming an IID for Ethernet".
Because that's what the ma
Alex,
While I believe that Suresh is correct in the case of RFC 2464, I am very
interested in the Ethernet implementation that supports non-64 bit IID. Do you
have a reference for this implementation? Further, are you interested in
supporting non-64 bit network prefixes? If so, let me know offl
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 a écrit :
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:56:43 +0100, Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
An IPv6 address prefix used for stateless autoconfiguration
[ACONF] of an Ethernet interface must have a length of 64 bits.
I disagree with this. There's an implementation of SLAAC over
Ethernet whos
Hi Alex,
On 18/02/09 11:56 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Dear 6MANers,
May I comment on two things about rfc2464 IPv6 over EThernet.
4. Stateless Autoconfiguration
I think a better title for this would be "Forming an IID for Ethernet".
Because that's what the majority of the text of the s
At Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:56:43 +0100,
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> >An IPv6 address prefix used for stateless autoconfiguration [ACONF]
> >of an Ethernet interface must have a length of 64 bits.
>
> I disagree with this. There's an implementation of SLAAC over Ethernet
> whose prefix can
Dear 6MANers,
May I comment on two things about rfc2464 IPv6 over EThernet.
4. Stateless Autoconfiguration
I think a better title for this would be "Forming an IID for Ethernet".
Because that's what the majority of the text of the section describes.
And because it sounds too much as "State
23 matches
Mail list logo
