Hi All,
In linux, route command has an entry for default(which is 0.0.0.0). There
will ONLY ONE such entry and it chooses only one physical interface.
default 192.168.2.254 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0
I have configured my linux system with an IPv6 address in my
On 2011-09-26 12:18 , Naarumanchi Kaushik wrote:
Hi All,
In linux, route command has an entry for default(which is 0.0.0.0).
Please note that ipv6@ietf is not the Linux configuration help
mailinglist. (then again, not any other similar location afaik ;)
There will ONLY ONE such entry and
Before I try what you have suggested, i have a question.
the way we have a default interface to be used(when there are multiple
interfaces) in the route table for ipv4, why there was no unique default
entry for ipv6 too?
Assuming my route table looks like this:
Destination Gateway
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
draft-zhang-6man-offset-option-01 proposes an idea for how to make it
easier for a node that needs to skip over an IPv6 header chain to do
so quickly, for example for flow classification or flow logging,
or (perish the thought) for payload inspection. The idea is to
IMHO there is no requirement AFAIK for there to be a SINGLE default
route for any address family (either IPv4 or IPv6). If there are
multiple candidate default routes available, most sensible systems will
install the default route with the lowest administrative distance into
the forwarding
On 9/25/11 4:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
For IPng Directorate material (pre-August 1994) there's Scott Bradner's
archive:
http://www.sobco.com/ipng/
but yours is slightly more cool as it can be reached via IPv6 ;-)
Does anybody have the material formerly at
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:06:26 +0200, Libor Polčák wrote:
Unfortunately, I believe that if we want to fix extension headers we
have to obsolete the current model and introduce a new one. For example
allow only L4 protocol numbers in IPv6 header or a special value
indicating that extension
Hi All,
I try to ping some routers on one of their Subnet-Router anycast addresses
(SRAA).
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4291#section-2.6.1)
Some (Cisco) reply with an unicast source address (same subnet prefix).
Another one (Alcatel) reply with the SRAA as source address.
A Linux kernel in
Donald Eastlake d3e...@gmail.com writes:
IPv6 Interface Identifiers (IIDs) are 64 bit quantities. Various RFCs
say you can use a Modified EUI-64 for an IID on the basis that you
control the base EUI-64. And control of some EUI-64s can derive from
control of an EUI-48 (i.e., a MAC address) or
The mailing list archives are available via the IETF FTP server
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ipngwg
Right. But these are missing a few months worth of stuff that Jeroen
has on his site (specifically Jeroen has a year's worth of stuff prior
to 1995-02, that the IETF site doesn't list).
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
draft-zhang-6man-offset-option-01 proposes an idea for how to make it
easier for a node that needs to skip over an IPv6 header chain to do
so quickly...
Alas, Brian, this strikes me as a rather bad idea -- introducing
ambiguity and
Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
Hello Libor,
ich published a I-D: IPv6 Extension Headers Reserved Space
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pfeifer-6man-exthdr-res-01
which try to address some of the problems. Introducing a new number
model don't work, but maybe a solution somewhere between - as
Hi All,
Section 4 of RFC 3484 states:
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3484#section-4)
4. Candidate Source Addresses
[. . .]
In any case, anycast addresses, multicast addresses, and the
unspecified address MUST NOT be included in a candidate set.
Are a reply to an UDP
On 2011-09-26 16:07 , Thomas Narten wrote:
The mailing list archives are available via the IETF FTP server
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf-mail-archive/ipngwg
Right. But these are missing a few months worth of stuff that Jeroen
has on his site (specifically Jeroen has a year's worth of stuff prior
On Sep 25, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
For IPng Directorate material (pre-August 1994) there's Scott Bradner's
archive:
http://www.sobco.com/ipng/
but yours is slightly more cool as it can be reached via IPv6 ;-)
Does anybody have the material formerly at
Brian,
I found what I think was the latest content dated around 2003. I think that
about when stopped being updated.
Bob
On Sep 26, 2011, at 10:39 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
On Sep 25, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
For IPng Directorate material (pre-August 1994) there's Scott
On 2011-09-27 03:38, John Leslie wrote:
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
draft-zhang-6man-offset-option-01 proposes an idea for how to make it
easier for a node that needs to skip over an IPv6 header chain to do
so quickly...
Alas, Brian, this strikes me as a rather
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011-09-27 03:38, John Leslie wrote:
Alas, Brian, this strikes me as a rather bad idea -- introducing
ambiguity and almost inviting gaming the system so that the same
packet looks different to a DPI device and the actual destination.
18 matches
Mail list logo
