Bob,
What are the times involved and how often? Please feel free to email me
directly. I may need some info about whether to use one of your existing Jabber
accounts/IDs or create one for this purpose.
Thanks,
Jaffer Jamil
--
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02
section 2.3
>Anyhow, the above text seems fine to me from a technical
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Here is an attempt to explain the text above from section 2.3 of the
document that I have included between squared brackets above. SA was
acquired using DHCPv6 where the DHCPv6 response did arrive to the client
on the IPv6 link-local address
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 3:04 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02
section 2.3
Mikael,
>Right now I couldn't help reading the text in s
On 28/03/2011 05:06 a.m., Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> In some certain large-scale broadband networks, an RA does not even
> include any PIO, so how will this document signal new bits?
I guess that those networks employ something else for host
configuration? (e.g., DHCP) -- If that's the case
-Original Message-
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swm...@swm.pp.se]
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 3:04 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02
section 2.3
>I'm thinking in the terms of multiple routers on the sa
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 2:22 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02
section 2.3
>Does the DHCPv6 response contain any information
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
It's the IPv6 default router for the DHCPv6 client that sends a RA with
the M-bit set and seeing such an RA the client initiates DHCPv6. Or the
client could initiate DHCPv6 even on receiving an RA with the M-bit
cleared. But the fact still r
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Teemu Kiviniemi
> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:53 PM
> To: teemu.savolai...@nokia.com
> Cc: beh...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix
>
> On Sun
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Brian Haberman wrote:
Hi Mikael,
On 3/28/11 4:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
Hello.
I read through 2.3 of the draft, and I am a bit unclear as to how the
next-hop should be selected.
In the case of my SLAAC machine, I see the next-hop for my default-route
as a LL addr
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Mikael Abrahamsson
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 10:25 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section
2.3
Mikael,
>In the case of getting address using D
Hi Mikael,
On 3/28/11 4:25 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I read through 2.3 of the draft, and I am a bit unclear as to how the
> next-hop should be selected.
>
> In the case of my SLAAC machine, I see the next-hop for my default-route
> as a LL address. How would the SA and the d
Hello.
I read through 2.3 of the draft, and I am a bit unclear as to how the
next-hop should be selected.
In the case of my SLAAC machine, I see the next-hop for my default-route
as a LL address. How would the SA and the default router LL be tied
together?
In the case of getting address u
Humble apologies that I meant to send this email to 6man but instead
sent it to v6ops.
Hemant
From: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 10:02 AM
To: IPv6 Ops WG
Subject: comment on draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-01
In some certain large-scale broadband netw
Hi,
We authors plan an editorial update of the draft. We think it is in
fairly good state. However, as the intention is to be a consideration
for the update of the IPv6 specs UDP checksuming rules, I think we
should not go forward to WG last call until also
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-i
Yes. The MIF model seems to me to be fairly broken
from an architectural point of view. Maybe you have to
forbid exporting certain information from one stack to another
on a MIF host.
Brian
On 2011-03-28 20:19, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com wrote:
> Multi-interfaced host might have one network in
Multi-interfaced host might have one network interface IPv6-only with NAT64
(e.g. cellular) and another network interface IPv4-only (e.g. WLAN).
Teemu
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 28. maaliskuuta 2011 07:55
> To: Teemu Ki
17 matches
Mail list logo
