Hi, Bob,
On 04/18/2012 05:55 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> On 04/17/2012 08:58 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>> In the Introduction the draft mentions that the IEEE MAC based
>>> interface identifiers don't eliminate the threat from host
>>> scanning.
>> []
>>> The problem I see is that this doesn't just
Hello,
I'm starting my work on linux NetworkManager. I've been following
several bugreports during the recent months that all lead to problems
with maintaining the list of recursive nameservers.
I've already spent quite some time analyzing RDNSS problems and I came
to a conclusion that the proble
Please review. As noted below, comments should be sent to the ietf list.
This does update RFC4291 IPv6 Address Architecture.
Bob
Begin forwarded message:
> From: The IESG
> Date: April 18, 2012 3:33:48 PM PDT
> To: IETF-Announce
> Cc: mbo...@ietf.org
> Subject: Last Call:
> (IPv4-Embedded
On 04/19/2012 10:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> It's not an argument against RFc4941, but rather an argument that even
>> with RFC4941, you still need to do something about the IEEE-based IIDs.
>> At the Paris IETF, some folks argued that if you have RFC 4941 in place,
>> you don't need draft-gont-6ma
All,
This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing:
Title : UDP Checksums for Tunneled Packets
Author(s) : Marshall Eubanks
P.F. Chimento
Filename: draft-ietf-6man-udpchecksums-02.txt
Pages
All,
This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing:
Title : IPv6 UDP Checksum Considerations
Author(s) : Godred Fairhurst
Magnus Westerlund
Filename: draft-ietf-6man-udpzero-05.txt
Pages :
On 4/18/12 5:43 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Eliot,
>
> On 04/18/2012 06:37 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>>> On 04/13/2012 10:09 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
At one point you write that the intent is to replace EUI-64-based
addresses (Section 5).
>>> Exactly.
> [Correcting myself]
>
> The intent
