On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
> PS: IMHO this is an example of IPv6 misunderstanding: the solution
> was developed for IPv4 and as it doesn't fit exactly into IPv6
> in place of adjusting the solution you propose to adjust IPv6.
ugh... T
In your previous mail you wrote:
> - if we need to vary things between a pair of IPv6 xTRs it should
> be enough (and simple/easy) to vary the addresses
The above was considered at the initial design stages of LISP, (I
think Dino may have considered this approach?); however, it
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 04:06:16PM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> > 4,166,900,871 packets 0 dropped due to bad checksum
>
> neat! (I'm also going to see if I can get some stats from a wider set
> of hosts, but)
If routers check the IPv4 header checksum (which I think they are
supposed to
