In your letter dated Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:35:31 -0400 you wrote:
>I am not sure the specs insist that an IPv6 implementation
>must treat an ICMPv6 Packet-Too-Big for less than 1280 bytes
>as "unrecoverable". (I haven't re-read the IPv6 specs recently.)
Some services, like big DNS server cannot af
playing catchup ...
Jared Mauch writes:
> To (re)state the biggest design issue with NDP again, it's outlined
> in 7.3 of the v6nd-enhance draft:
> -- snip --
> 7.3. NDP Protocol Gratuitous NA
>Per RFC 4861, section 7.2.5 and 7.2.6 [RFC4861] requires that
>unsolicited neighbor advert
Hi,
In some ways I'd rather defer discussion of this draft until 6renum has
clarified the requirements somewhat. However, two comments for now:
1. I don't find that this draft, admittedly preliminary, clearly defines
what a tokenised IID is. If it just means a configured IID, why not say so?
2.
Hi Rute,
I will contribute, but do you have a specific deadline for us to send you
comments?
BR,
Rute Sofia
[[SC ] ] Thanks.If you provide comments in next few weeks, that will be
good, I believe.
-Samita
On 07/19/2011 08:38 PM, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
Hello all:
In 6lowpan workgroup,
Hello Samita,
I will contribute, but do you have a specific deadline for us to send
you comments?
BR,
Rute Sofia
On 07/19/2011 08:38 PM, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
Hello all:
In 6lowpan workgroup, we developed draft-ietf-6lowpan-nd which
provides optimization of IPv6 ND for IEEE802.15.4 dev
On Jul 20, 2011, at 14:35 , RJ Atkinson wrote:
> One hopes IPv6 implementers will be tolerant of IPv6 MTUs below 1280 bytes,
> because they do exist in the deployed world and aren't going away anytime
> soon.
Those hopes are not well placed.
I am aware of at least one packet filter implementat
Earlier, Brian Carpenter wrote:
> It's always been my understanding that an interface sending IPv6 packets
> MUST implement some (unspecified) form of framentation and reassembly
> *below layer 3* if the link MTU is less than 1280. In other words a
> PTB for a packet of length 1280 is an unrecovera
In your letter dated Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:17:51 -0700 you wrote:
>> A few remarks about this draft:
>> 1) It must be somewhere in RFC-4861, but it is not easy to find and it's
>> probably best to help implementors here: if a NCE for a router transitio
>ns
>> to UNREACHABLE state and there ar
On 7/20/11 9:17 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:41:41 -0700 you wrote:
A new version of I-D, draft-nordmark-6man-impatient-nud-01.txt has been
successfully submitted by Erik Nordmark and posted to the IETF repository.
Thanks for your review.
A few remarks a
In your letter dated Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:41:41 -0700 you wrote:
>A new version of I-D, draft-nordmark-6man-impatient-nud-01.txt has been
>successfully submitted by Erik Nordmark and posted to the IETF repository.
A few remarks about this draft:
1) It must be somewhere in RFC-4861, but it is not e
In your letter dated Tue, 19 Jul 2011 22:28:03 -0700 you wrote:
>On 7/19/11 6:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> For example, if you're tunneling IPv6 over an IPv4 network whose PMTU (to
>> the other end of the tunnel) is, to take a random example, 576, the tunnel
>> end points could use IPv4 fragm
11 matches
Mail list logo
