Setting the flow label by calling random() cannot be a stateless
method - it would mean storing the value for use on future packets
of the same flow. We need a stateless method.
Brian
On 2011-04-07 10:16, Fernando Gont wrote:
Hi, Shane,
On 06/04/2011 06:44 p.m., Shane Amante wrote:
*
On 2011-04-07 08:22, Scott Brim wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 14:49, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Scott Brim scott.b...@gmail.com writes:
A Flow is a sequence of packets originating from a particular
application that should be treated the same by the network as
they are
On 07/04/2011 04:32 a.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Setting the flow label by calling random() cannot be a stateless
method - it would mean storing the value for use on future packets
of the same flow. We need a stateless method.
Oops, you're right. (Although for FLs set by end nodes this
Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar wrote:
On 06/04/2011 05:44 p.m., John Leslie wrote:
Fernando Gont ferna...@gont.com.ar wrote:
* We want Flow Labels that unpredictable by off-path attackers (history
has taught us that this is a good proactive measure)
I'm afraid I don't follow: what
Dear all,
Fred Baker asked me to move draft-denog-v6ops-addresspartnaming-04 [1]
to 6man. Thus, we are reintroducing it as
draft-6man-addresspartnaming-00 without changing anything in the
actual text.
The DENOG reference has been removed for internal and political
reasons but this ID still stems
Richard,
It is good to discuss this in 6man on the IPv6 list, but if you are going to
resubmit the draft it should be named something like:
draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-00
as it is an individual draft, not a 6man working group document.
Thanks,
Bob
On Apr 7, 2011, at 1:07 PM,
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 23:52, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
draft-hartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-00
The main work is shared between two editors listed alphabetically so I
am unsure how to name this fairly. Suggestions?
draft-donnerhackehartmann-6man-addresspartnaming-00 is a tad too
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 22:07 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
The second question on my mind is if using MUST for hextet is
appropriate. Using SHOULD is fine as well though I personally think
MUST is better to avoid any and all potential confusion.
hextet - oh dear. Were there really no better
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 03:54, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
hextet - oh dear. Were there really no better suggestions than quibble
and hextet?
If you look at -02 of the initial draft, you will find a full list.
Googling for the name of the ID will bring up a lot of discussions on
