At Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:24:47 -0400,
Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
Title : IPv6 Subnet Model: the Relationship between
Links and Subnet Prefixes
Author(s) : H. Singh, et al.
Filename : draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-05.txt
So have I and Wes been able to close the issue for the DSL Forum folks?
Implement ND Proxy at your first-hop IPv6 router/access concentrator.
Thanks,
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hemant
Singh (shemant)
Sent:
I've read this draft. I don't have a strong opinion on the proposal
per se, but have a couple of minor comments:
1. In Section 4, the draft says:
However, Subnet-router
anycast address has not been implemented and in practice, this has
not been a problem.
I'm afraid has not been
(Sorry, I will not be able to participate in the 6man discussion at the
meeting, as I have to be in another session.)
It appears likely that it is impossible to meet all of the relevant
constraints. But less us not pretend that solutions likely this are
obviously sufficient.
One of the
Hi,
We need a jabber scribe for Tuesday's morning's 6MAN session. Please
email me if you are willing to do this.
Thanks,
Bob
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests:
Hi,
let me CC to 6man ML,
Per RFC4861,
6.3.4. Processing Received Router Advertisements
...
- If the address is already present in the host's Default Router
List and the received Router Lifetime value is zero,
immediately
time-out the entry as specified in Section
Sorry, I still don't get it. We need more detail!
Two things stand out:
If two devices happen to have the same Ethernet MAC address as a
consequence of incompetent manufacture, the link-local address derived
for that interface will also be non-unique, provided it is derived
from the EUI-64
At Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:00:47 -0700,
Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
This message starts a 2-week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:
Title : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
Author(s) : S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima
as a Proposed
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Thomas Narten wrote:
this 4% figure seems *very* high. Can you please provide more details on
how you reached that number?
I have personal experience with managing ADSL provider. We noticed approx
5% of all MAC addresses were identical, I've personally seen D-link
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Doesn't the home modem, or residential gateway, have hard-coded in it
the unique IPv6 prefix for each home? If yes, then why would a home PC
host not always have a unique IPv6 address, even if the MAC address
might be duplicated in some other home
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Here is the crux of my not understanding the problem:
And no, I haven't seen any residential rollout
plan where
IPv6 would be provisioned in the static way you describe,
DHCPv6-PD seems
to be the most
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Does not the ISP control, own, and distribute the residential gateway?
Not in my market anyway (some have this service of course, but it's
definitely not mandatory).
Why would ISP not own and control the residential gateway?
Because it's
Regarding Note that Redirect Messages can also indicate an address is
off-link.
I think we've removed that from the latest draft, which is available at
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-subnet-model-05.txt
We have instead, the text (in section 2.2):
Note that Redirect Messages do not
One common way of setting up a residential gateway is to first set up a
PC connected to the ISP, let it get an IPv4 address through DHCPv4, tell
the ISP about it and get the MAC address and DHCPv4 lease recorded (and
reserved) in the ISP servers (to get it online). Then, the customer
hangs up the
Answers inline
On Nov 9, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Here is the crux of my not understanding the problem:
And no, I haven't seen any residential rollout
plan where
IPv6 would be provisioned in
That seems a little more complicated than it needs to be, but assuming that PCs
are designed by people who know about uniqueness of MAC addresses, that
solution should also work with IPv6 too, no?
Another possibility is that ISPs need to allow DAD to be run by residential
gateways on the WAN
Hi,
We need someone to take minutes for today's morning's 6MAN session.
Please email me if you are willing to do this.
Thanks,
Bob
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests:
I can.
Marshall
On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Hi,
We need someone to take minutes for today's morning's 6MAN session.
Please email me if you are willing to do this.
Thanks,
Bob
IETF IPv6 working group
HI
There are a couple of scenarios to consider..
1) Simple bridging from the home, hence a number of NIC address will appear at
the edge router...
2) Retail model for RGs, which is how I bought mine... My modem came from my
DSL provider, but as it had no wireless, so I turned off all higher
HI Thomas:
Unfortunately having just changed jobs I'm having trouble exactly recreating
all my sources of information...
The following was one anecdotal example offered during our discussions in the
spring..in a real nationwide telco today with approximately 3.5million DSL
ports there is
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
David Allan I
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 8:00 AM
To: Manfredi, Albert E; Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Liaison from BBF
HI
There are a couple of scenarios to consider..
Hi Hemant:
w.r.t. bridged mode, You folks may have shot it down but is is deployed. And
frequently implemented as multiple tagged domains in the home such that not all
tags get the same treatment going outside the homehence there is some
containment of the issues you identify
Simply
(Fixed the subject with the correct revision number)
At Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:32:22 -0500,
Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wbee...@cisco.com wrote:
Regarding Note that Redirect Messages can also indicate an address is
off-link.
I think we've removed that from the latest draft, which is available at
Dave,
If a document can be pointed to that uses the tagged domains, that would
be useful. I, Wes, and, Ole Troan during the March IETF were talking of
regular bridged networks. Once we see what's going on for data
forwarding in the tagged domain you speak of, we can see what to do
about it.
No problem at all. Thanks much for the support.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of JINMEI
Tatuya /
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:19 AM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden
Humble apologies for not reading this lowpan doc, but I have listened to
its core ideas during the past IETFs prezos and understand the link
model being used for it. I still have some general comments that are
worth discussing when bringing such work to 6man.
Note that if the multi-link,
I'd like to put forward some additional points which should perhaps be
concise enough to clarify the liaison and questions a bit more.
There are actually two issues, out of which the duplicate MAC address
issue is IMO a far less tractable problem (as it needs to be solved at
L2 for anything to
I'm following up on the discussion just had in 6man regarding address
selection. I have this awful feeling that we are fighting off the
alligators and forgetting to drain the swamp.
Correct me if I am wrong. The objectives being the source address
selection algorithm are to:
1) keep a
If the latter paragraph only should be executed, the address given
by rogue RA remains, right ?
My reading would be that on receipt of a 0-lifetime RA that only the
second paragraph would be executed (lifetime timeout). However, all
hosts receiving the 0-lifetime RA would then have to
Erik,
On 2009/11/10, at 10:43, Erik Kline wrote:
If the latter paragraph only should be executed, the address given
by rogue RA remains, right ?
My reading would be that on receipt of a 0-lifetime RA that only the
second paragraph would be executed (lifetime timeout).
Second to that.
Fred,
Another approach to problem 3 is to extract REAP from SHIM6
and figure out how to use it to enhance address selection
in practice.
Brian
On 2009-11-10 14:42, Fred Baker wrote:
I'm following up on the discussion just had in 6man regarding address
selection. I have this awful feeling
A note you may find interesting in this context is:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5375.txt
5375 IPv6 Unicast Address Assignment Considerations. G. Van de Velde,
C. Popoviciu, T. Chown, O. Bonness, C. Hahn. December 2008.
(Format:
TXT=83809 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
You already
In the discussion of IPv6 address selection , Dave Thaler asked me to
comment on this bullet from slide 10:
* DHCP option
- Hard to kick policy reconfigure by a server.
Not wanting to contribute to yet another iteration of the RA-vs-DHCP
debate, I'm responding through the mailing list.
On 2009/11/10, at 10:58, Ralph Droms wrote:
In the discussion of IPv6 address selection , Dave Thaler asked me
to comment on this bullet from slide 10:
* DHCP option
- Hard to kick policy reconfigure by a server.
Not wanting to contribute to yet another iteration of the RA-vs-DHCP
2009/9/18 Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org:
Vijayrajan ranganathan wrote:
Hi,
If I want to use more than 1 loopback IPv4 address, I can
assign one from 127.0.0.0/8 address range.
Does IANA reserve some IPv6 address range for loopback communication?
If not, what is the best address
-Original Message-
From: Carsten Bormann [mailto:c...@tzi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:34 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; 6lowpan; Pascal Thubert (pthubert); Jonathan Hui;
Samita Chakrabarti; Erik Nordmark; Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: off-link model in the
Fred,
For your icmp see 3.4 in:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hain-ipv6-fwrh-02.txt
Tony
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Fred Baker
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:43 AM
To:
DHCPv6 Reconfigure can be secured using an additional Reconfigure
Key that does not require a shared secret or other pre-
configuration. So, the DHCPv6 Reconfigure has essentially no
overhead. See section 21.5 of RFC 3315.
- Ralph
On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:06 AM 11/10/09, Arifumi Matsumoto
Fred,
On 2009/11/10, at 10:42, Fred Baker wrote:
I'm following up on the discussion just had in 6man regarding
address selection. I have this awful feeling that we are fighting
off the alligators and forgetting to drain the swamp.
Correct me if I am wrong. The objectives being the source
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jinmei-san
Thanks for your comments.
I think they all give help in clarifying.
I will make the change.
JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
At Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:00:47 -0700,
Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
This message starts a 2-week 6MAN Working
2009/11/9 Arifumi Matsumoto arif...@nttv6.net:
Erik,
On 2009/11/10, at 10:43, Erik Kline wrote:
If the latter paragraph only should be executed, the address given
by rogue RA remains, right ?
My reading would be that on receipt of a 0-lifetime RA that only the
second paragraph would be
Please hunt me down to return this if you have it.
- Jared
+1-313-506-4307
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Hi Zach:
A useful (informational) reference.
I understood that we now call the whole LoWPAN the link though we still
restrict the use of link local for the radio range.
Autoconf still uses the radio range as link. Also it is has:
o There is no mechanism to ensure that IPv6 link-local
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 : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
Author(s) : S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima
I may have not quite understood the comments about ECMP
and the flow label in 6man today. But here goes:
The flow label spec in RFC3697 says, very carefully and
precisely:
IPv6 nodes MUST NOT assume any mathematical or other properties of
the Flow Label values assigned by source nodes.
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009, Fred Baker wrote:
The simplest solution to (3), if my machine is in an administrative domain
facing an ISP, is to have my DMZ router perform the BCP 38 filter before the
datagram reaches the ISP, and in the failure case reply with some form of
ICMP message that says
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009, JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
I'm afraid has not been implemented is too strong. In fact, we have
implemented it in the KAME/BSD IPv6 stack in that we implemented
special restrictions (at that time) on anycast addresses and had
experimentally assigned subnet-router anycast
Hemant,
it is probably best if you copy 6low...@ietf.org for discussing this.
Note that if the multi-link, multi-hop network has all client nodes
as off-link to each other, then there is only one type of regular ND
(RFC4861) RA that can signal off-link. This is an RA with no PIO
(Prefix
Carsten presented 6lowpan-nd to 6man today, which was useful. A
comment that came in from Dave Thaler was to re-use the autoconf
model. Everyone should take a look at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-autoconf-adhoc-addr-model-00
This greatly simplifies the editorial/terminology work
On Nov 10, 2009, at 11:05, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
ND as specified by RFC 4861 has no means to
signal a prefix as off-link, so the L bit cleared is not signaling
off-link.
Right, L=0 does not say this is off-link, it says I'm not saying it
is on-link.
(RFC 4861, section 4.6.2 and
50 matches
Mail list logo
