Hi Suresh,
Good to hear that you will be clarifying the draft. I take it that showing
the full intended RS/RA message exchange will be part of that clarification.
Thanks,
Woj.
On 20 August 2010 01:06, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.comwrote:
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the comments. I
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Agreed, redirects should *not* be enabled by default.
+1.
I would much rather have the router forward the packet back the way it
came as opposed to sending redirects. I believe this is the default when
disabling redirects on most vendors, I'd
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Christian Huitema
huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
yes. this seems like a case of something that looked like a great idea
12+ years ago (rfc2461 was published in 1998, LOTS of things have
changed since that time) but is upon reflection maybe not a great
idea.
Couple of comments on Section 9.0 (Mobility): draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05
1.) When Mobile IPv6 was designed, one important feature that made into the
protocol is the support for Route Optimization. The ability for a mobile node
to provide the information on the direct (non-anchor or
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 5952
Title: A Recommendation for IPv6 Address
Text Representation
Author: S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima
Status: Standards Track
Stream:
Sri - I agree with all of your comments including the statement that
RO is a key feature of MIPv6. I would add a caveat that there is not
much incentive for a large scale server to implement RO, as it benefits
the mobile node user rather than the application or the hosting service.
It seems
On 8/20/10 1:47 PM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Sri Gundavelli sgund...@cisco.com writes:
Couple of comments on Section 9.0 (Mobility):
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05
1.) When Mobile IPv6 was designed, one important feature that made
into the protocol is the support for
Did someone say Route Optimization? Here is a new routing,
addressing and mobility architecture that addresses it:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-iron-10
This is the Internet Routing Overlay Network (IRON). Route
Optimization is only one feature among many that makes IRON
a
Fred,
We are discussing IPv6 node-requirements and considering specifications that
are standards-track RFCs. There is no point in throwing out specs that are
individual I-Ds at this time (at least in the context of this discussion).
-Raj
On 8/20/10 2:23 PM, ext Templin, Fred L
Raj,
IRON represents a new mobility architecture that has not been
discussed here before, and it is different from MIP in many ways.
IRON is currently in WGLC in the Routing Research Group, where it
was developed with guidance from wg participants.
Fred
fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
-Original
Hi Juergen.
Thanks for bringing up this topic!
OLD
Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6
nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
possible way of controlling these nodes.
NEW
IPv6 nodes may support network management
Hi Thomas,
Sri Gundavelli sgund...@cisco.com writes:
Couple of comments on Section 9.0 (Mobility):
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05
1.) When Mobile IPv6 was designed, one important feature that made
into the protocol is the support for Route Optimization. The
ability
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:59:12PM +0200, Thomas Narten wrote:
Thanks for bringing up this topic!
OLD
Network Management MAY be supported by IPv6 nodes. However, for IPv6
nodes that are embedded devices, network management may be the only
possible way of controlling these
I think there is some misunderstanding going on here and I believe it
may have to do with the lack of detail (and maybe some typos) in the
draft. It appears that sections 5 6 could be made more clear with a
few additions.
Thank you. You said what I was going to say. :-)
First, it would be
Hi Thomas/Ed:
(I was not really expecting Thomas to respond to this thread, I want support
from folks :), now they are gone).
1. We don't have any experience with MIPv6 RO, I agree. But, if we don't enable
this function in every IPv6 node, we will never ever have the opportunity to
turn this
Sri Gundavelli sgund...@cisco.com writes:
Hi Thomas/Ed:
(I was not really expecting Thomas to respond to this thread, I want
support from folks :), now they are gone).
1. We don't have any experience with MIPv6 RO, I agree. But, if we
don't enable this function in every IPv6 node, we
Suresh,
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 4:17 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Brian Haberman; IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: Consensus call on
Hi Woj,
On 10-08-20 03:34 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
Hi Suresh,
Good to hear that you will be clarifying the draft. I take it that
showing the full intended RS/RA message exchange will be part of that
clarification.
Absolutely.
Cheers
Suresh
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the comments. I acknowledge the lack of detail in the
draft and this is due to the fact that I assumed referencing the
relevant BBF document (TR-101) was sufficient. I will clarify these
details in the next revision.
Thanks
Suresh
On 10-08-20 04:56 PM, Thomas Narten
1. We don't have any experience with MIPv6 RO, I agree. But, if we
don't enable this function in every IPv6 node, we will never ever
have the opportunity to turn this feature on.
for all values of X. when we don't even have basics working and
deployed and actually used. full employment
20 matches
Mail list logo
