On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Mark Smith
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org wrote:
I don't see anywhere it specifically says RFC4291 is to be updated, or
replacement text for the impacted section(s).
The header says updates 4291. But yes, there is no text that says what
Frank,
You obviously haven't been tracking the current discussion
on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security on the v6ops list,
which is where the cpe-router draft belongs anyway.
I suggest that you read that thread.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2010-03-26 18:25, Frank Bulk wrote:
There was
Frank,
Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
carnage. Anyway, the current CPE router draft has the following security
requirements in section 4.4:
S-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support
Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
carnage. Anyway, the current CPE router draft has the following security
requirements in section 4.4:
S-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support
Hi Mark and all,
Thank you for your reviewing the draft and the valuable discussion.
If the purpose of the draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-01.txt
draft is to contradict the position of RFC3627, then I think
the draft needs to address all the points made in RFC3627,
not just the Anycast
Kohno-san,
Please note that the scope of the draft is limited to inter-router p2p
links. So it excludes LAN segments, hosts which need SLAAC, etc. We'd
clarify this more in the next version.
And for LAN segments, I agree ND should be enhanced for solving the ND
cache issue.
How about
Please note that the scope of the draft is limited to inter-router p2p
links.
which may be a bit restrictive. i occasionally have p2p inter-server
links on which i use a /127.
How about inter-router ethernet links today we often use ?
/127 is what we use.
randy
Randy,
Thank you very much for your clear answer :-)
How about inter-router ethernet links today we often use ?
/127 is what we use.
It sounds to me that you IIJ are using ethernet link as just p2p link
and ask your customer use just like you. I see.
Then, still I'd like know about the
[added V6OPS list]
On Mar 26, 2010, at 08:11, Ole Troan wrote:
Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
carnage. Anyway, the current CPE router draft has the following security
Once again, this is a v6ops topic, so this will be my last comment
here on the 6man list:
On 2010-03-27 04:53, Perkins, Carroll G wrote:
In all of these discussions, I am amazed that no one has mentioned that NIST
has written a set of IPv6 implementation requirements for all US manufactured
Randy,
Then, still I'd like know about the case if inter-router ethernet link
with more than two routers just like some Internet Exchange, some
enterprise backbone or so, for example.
that is not a p2p link. the draft is about p2p links.
oh. OK. I understand that your point. Thanks.
Shin
Then, still I'd like know about the case if inter-router ethernet link
with more than two routers just like some Internet Exchange, some
enterprise backbone or so, for example.
that is not a p2p link. the draft is about p2p links.
randy
James,
indeed, apart from the fact that it does not/will not make any
recommendation about default on or off.
If the editors of I-D.ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router would like to host the
debate over whether or not to make such a recommendation, then that would
make me very, very happy. We
Shin-san,
Then, still I'd like know about the case if inter-router
ethernet link with more than two routers just like some
Internet Exchange, some enterprise backbone or so, for example.
I'd say an adequate prefix length can be chosen based on operators
policy. (/64, /112, etc.)
But as for
My apologies for posting to the wrong list -- I didn't realize there was a
second v6ops listserv for IETF-related discussion (I also subscribe to
ipv6-...@lists.cluenet.de at ).
Looks like ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security more than covers my little
paragraph, except the phrase stateful firewall is
On 3/26/10 6:33 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
[added V6OPS list]
On Mar 26, 2010, at 08:11, Ole Troan wrote:
Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
carnage. Anyway, the current CPE router
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Miya Kohno mko...@juniper.net wrote:
I'd say an adequate prefix length can be chosen based on operators
policy. (/64, /112, etc.)
But as for the draft, more than two routers is out of the scope of the
document.
Agreed. I think the draft is explicitly not
17 matches
Mail list logo
