Hi,
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com writes:
This all leads me to conclude that the node requirements doc should
not make SEND even a SHOULD. Ideally, somewhere between a MAY and
SHOULD. I'd love to see SEND implemented and deployed (so we can
figure out how well it works and fix any
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 09:43:16 +0200, a...@natisbad.org (Arnaud Ebalard)
wrote:
This all leads me to conclude that the node requirements doc should
not make SEND even a SHOULD. Ideally, somewhere between a MAY and
SHOULD. I'd love to see SEND implemented and deployed (so we can
figure out how
Hi,
marcelo bagnulo braun marc...@it.uc3m.es writes:
FWIW, send is available in junos
http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos9.3/information-products/topic-collections/release-notes/9.3/m-mx-t-series-new-features.html
Hi Rémi,
Rémi Denis-Courmont r...@remlab.net writes:
IIRC, the DoCoMo implementation is basically a proof-of-concept-grade hack.
It works with user-space packet filtering hooks, instead of being built
into the real IPv6 neighbor discovery code.
Your IIRC is valid. It uses libnetfilter_queue
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
IIRC, the DoCoMo implementation is basically a proof-of-concept-grade hack.
It works with user-space packet filtering hooks, instead of being built
into the real IPv6 neighbor discovery code.
SeND is theoretically not easy to deploy - you need to provision
On 25/07/09 12:07 AM, Rémi Denis-Courmont r...@remlab.net wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:40:14 +1000, Hesham Soliman
hes...@elevatemobile.com
wrote:
SeND is theoretically not easy to deploy - you need to provision
cryptography material on all nodes.
= Why? You only need to provision
The document currently says:
5.7.3. Privacy Extensions for Address Configuration in IPv6 - RFC 4941
Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC4941]
SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that this behavior be
configurable on a connection basis within each
On 24/07/09 11:52 PM, Arnaud Ebalard a...@natisbad.org wrote:
Hi Hesham,
Hesham Soliman hes...@elevatemobile.com writes:
SeND is theoretically not easy to deploy - you need to provision
cryptography material on all nodes.
= Why? You only need to provision routers if you want
The document currently says:
8. Mobile IP
The Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] specification defines requirements for the
following types of nodes:
- mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for route optimization
- home agents
- all IPv6 routers
Hi Thomas,
On 7/24/09 10:41 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
The document currently says:
8. Mobile IP
The Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] specification defines requirements for the
following types of nodes:
- mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for
I tend to think MIPv6 RO is not deployed in CNs, at least not as wide as
expected.
With respect to Raj's earlier suggestion, I wouldn't agree substituting
RFC for RFC3775, i.e. to use DSMIPv6 instead of Mobile IPv6 -
because Mobile IPv6 and Mobile IPv4 have been used successfully for this
Thomas,
I don't think that client / server functionality are so well defined in most of
the IPv6 RFCs, but are more of the node / router functional split. I think
giving some additional information about how a particular node is used is good
- but at the end of the day, most of the node
12 matches
Mail list logo
