Hi, folks,
Routing Header Type 1, and option 0x8a (Endpoint Identification), are
related to the Nimrod routing system.
Has Nimrod for IPv6 ever been specified? If so, has there ever been any
deployments?
Put another way: should one expect to find occurrences of RHT1 and/or
option 0x8a?
Thanks!
Hi Ole
I believe its also true in that the host tx the RS and Edge node then responds
with the RA as oppose to the Edge node txing the RA. This is really a BBF issue
on how the BNG operates and should be taken up in BBF.
Alan
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6
Suresh,
>> that wasn't quite the question I asked. DHCPv6 has a well defined mechanism
>> to periodically retry, while RS client sending simply timeout. This would
>> seemingly leave such clients in the proposed scheme with no connectivity.
>
> I do see your problem, but that problem is common
Hi Woj,
On 10-08-18 11:01 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
Hi Alan,
that wasn't quite the question I asked. DHCPv6 has a well defined
mechanism to periodically retry, while RS client sending simply timeout.
This would seemingly leave such clients in the proposed scheme with no
connectivity.
I do se
> Its the same issue for DHCPv6, if the client dont send a DHCP_Solicit you
> dont get an address. Also, the RS similar to the DHCP_Solicit is used to
> "kick_start" the IP Sub session and as you know there are lots of hosts whom
> dont have a DHCPv6 client and will not have a DHCPv6 client.
>
Hi Alan,
that wasn't quite the question I asked. DHCPv6 has a well defined mechanism
to periodically retry, while RS client sending simply timeout. This would
seemingly leave such clients in the proposed scheme with no connectivity.
-Woj.
On 18 August 2010 16:51, Alan Kavanagh wrote:
> Hi Woj
Hi Woj
Its the same issue for DHCPv6, if the client dont send a DHCP_Solicit you dont
get an address. Also, the RS similar to the DHCP_Solicit is used to
"kick_start" the IP Sub session and as you know there are lots of hosts whom
dont have a DHCPv6 client and will not have a DHCPv6 client.
Th
Hi Suresh,
thanks for your reply. Continued inline...
On 18 August 2010 16:03, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Woj,
> Thanks for your comments.
>
>
> On 10-08-18 07:11 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a question or two to the draft authors who can hopefully clarify
>> the expected cont
Hi Woj,
Thanks for your comments.
On 10-08-18 07:11 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
Hi,
I have a question or two to the draft authors who can hopefully clarify
the expected context and working of this scheme, which at the moment is
a bit unclear.
In essence the problem this draft appears to be tryi
Hi,
I have a question or two to the draft authors who can hopefully clarify the
expected context and working of this scheme, which at the moment is a bit
unclear.
In essence the problem this draft appears to be trying to solve is using
RS/RA messages to induce state into intermediate or IP edge de
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:20:56 +0300 (EEST)
Pekka Savola wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I changed the subject, because the original intent was lost in the
> weeds.
>
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Olivier Vautrin wrote:
> > It is clear that there is one more action done on the packet with
> > RFC4443. But this has n
11 matches
Mail list logo
