On Mar 29, 2013, at 23:18, Mark Smith wrote:
>> The main use case
I certainly can sympathize with this use case.
I'm more interested in solutions that scale, up and down.
When we did 6LoWPAN-ND to get rid of the requirement for subnet-wide multicast,
we stuck to the constrained node network u
Hi Carsten,
- Original Message -
> From: Carsten Bormann
> To: Mark Smith
> Cc: "6low...@ietf.org" <6low...@ietf.org>; "r...@ietf.org" ;
> "ipv6@ietf.org List" ; "core (c...@ietf.org)"
> Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013 8:25 AM
> Subject: Re: GHC now crunches DTLS (Re: [Roll] [6lowpan]
Hi Behcet,
Thanks for your review and comments.
>
> From: Behcet Sarikaya
>To: Dave Thaler
>Cc: Mark Smith ; "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>;
>"mbo...@ietf.org"
>Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013 8:33 AM
>Subject: Re: [MBONED] "MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer U
Hi Dave,
Thanks very much for those references. I'll have a read, and refer to them in
the next revision.
Thanks also for pointing out the MBoneD WG.
Best regards,
Mark.
- Original Message -
> From: Dave Thaler
> To: Mark Smith ; "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>
> Cc: "mbo...@ietf.org
Hi Mark,
I read your draft.
First of all I think you misunderstood RFC 6085 and based on a wrong
assumption you developed your solution. I suggest you take a look at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-netext-pmipv6-shared-link-01
on Netext for PMIPv6.
I believe that we should use multicast
On Mar 29, 2013, at 22:11, Mark Smith wrote:
> RFC5175, "IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option"
EFO was inspiration for 6CIO, but is different from 6CIO in that it is about
flags promulgated by a router (and therefore can only be used in an RA).
6CIO is about the capabilities of the node sendi
Hi Carsten,
- Original Message -
> From: Carsten Bormann
> To: "6low...@ietf.org" <6low...@ietf.org>
> Cc: r...@ietf.org; "ipv6@ietf.org List" ; "core
> (c...@ietf.org)"
> Sent: Saturday, 30 March 2013 12:22 AM
> Subject: GHC now crunches DTLS (Re: [Roll] [6lowpan] draft-bormann-ghc)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thaler-ngtrans-6to4-multicast
is work we did back in 2000 on this same topic. At the time, the draft is
written from
the perspective of the 6to4 NBMA link, but the topic was discussed
(specifically by those
in the acknowledgements section, and to a lesser exte
Hi,
This version is intended to include the results of the discussion
in Orlando.
Review and comments welcome!
Brian & Sheng
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ext-transmit-00.txt
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:56:33 -0700
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
To: i-
Hi,
This version is intended to include the results of the discussion
in Orlando.
Review and comments welcome!
Brian & Sheng
Original Message
Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-ug-00.txt
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 08:56:10 -0700
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
Reply-To: intern
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Transmission of IPv6 Extension Headers
Author(s) : Brian Carpenter
Sheng
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : The U and G bits in IPv6 Interface Identifiers
Author(s) : Brian Carpenter
The consensus to adopt draft-boucadair-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-00 as a
6MAN working group document is confirmed. The authors can submit the next
version as a working group document.
Bob & Ole
On Mar 21, 2013, at 6:00 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> All,
>
> At the Orlando meeting this docum
The consensus to adopt draft-carpenter-6man-ug-01 as a 6MAN working group
document is confirmed. The authors can submit the next version as a working
group document.
Bob & Ole
On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:57 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> All,
>
> At the Orlando meeting this document was discussed, and t
The consensus to adopt draft-carpenter-6man-ext-transmit as a 6MAN working
group document is confirmed. The authors can submit the next version as a
working group document.
Bob & Ole
On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:54 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
> All,
>
> At the Orlando meeting this document was discusse
On Aug 25, 2012, at 13:41, peter van der Stok wrote:
> GHC applied to DTLS encrypted messages is interesting indeed. It may
> represent an important number of messages to transmit.
> I would concentrate on getting the GHC on DTLS results known and then start
> pushing ghc draft.
It took a whil
On 03/28/2013 01:37 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
[]
> There are very many hurdles to a simple straightforward IPv6 address
> planning for vehicles.
>
> 1 - At most 2^78 vehicles may exist.
>
> There may be not enough space in IPv6 addressing architecture space
> to uniquely distingui
Le 28/03/2013 19:24, Michael Richardson a écrit :
"Alexandru" == Alexandru Petrescu
writes:
Alexandru> 2 - the prefixes obtained from Registries, or from ISP
(which one Alexandru> should I try first?) may come with a price tag.
The more vehicles, Alexandru> the pricier the allocation.
Depend
Hi Carsten,
- Original Message -
> From: Carsten Bormann
> To: Mark Smith
> Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org"
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013 9:07 PM
> Subject: Re: "MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of Multicast"
>
> On Mar 29, 2013, at 10:52, Mark Smith wrote:
>
>> Yes. NUD is per
Le 28/03/2013 20:29, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit :
-Original Message- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
Well they're different than Ethernet interfaces. One could have
several Ethernet interfaces in a single car. And, cars have
On Mar 29, 2013, at 10:52, Mark Smith wrote:
> Yes. NUD is performed on the link-local addresses used as the source
> addresses for the MLDv2 messages.
RFC 4861 says:
Neighbor Unreachability Detection detects the failure of a neighbor
or the failure of the forward path to the neighbor.
Le 28/03/2013 19:51, Bob Hinden a écrit :
Alexandru,
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
Sorry for the late reply.
Le 19/02/2013 22:08, joel jaeggli a écrit :
On 2/19/13 12:40 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I think I may need to actually better expose the problem: how
t
Hi Carsten,
Thanks very much for your review and comments.
- Original Message -
> From: Carsten Bormann
> To: Mark Smith
> Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013 7:21 PM
> Subject: Re: "MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of Multicast"
>
> Hi Ma
Hi Mark,
interesting draft. I'm interested in this from a 6LoWPAN perspective --
everything we can do to get rid of multicasts is very good for 6LoWPANs.
I don't understand how you think NUD would work with this (3.2) -- are you
saying that the multicast emitter actively runs NUD to the target
On Mar 29, 2013, at 07:37, Andrew McGregor wrote:
> IPv6 over 802.11
That doesn't really exist; IP is generally interfacing to 802.11 as if it were
802.3.
There was some discussion at IETF 60, apparently, but I don't know of any
results:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-daniel-ipv6-over-wifi-
On 2013-03-29 08:49 , Jeroen Massar wrote:
> On 2013-03-29 08:38 , Mark Smith wrote:
>> There seems to be multi-hour delays to the 6...@ietf.org mailing
>> address, a copy for reference. I'll make sure all future replies are
>> to ipv6@ietf.org.
>
> That is because you are sending mails without di
On 2013-03-29 08:38 , Mark Smith wrote:
> There seems to be multi-hour delays to the 6...@ietf.org mailing
> address, a copy for reference. I'll make sure all future replies are
> to ipv6@ietf.org.
That is because you are sending mails without directly sending it to
ipv6@ietf.org it seems, as such
Hi Andrew,
Thanks very much for your review and comments.
>
> From: Andrew McGregor
>To: Mark Smith
>Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>
>Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013 5:37 PM
>Subject: Re: "MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of Multicast"
>
>
>I
There seems to be multi-hour delays to the 6...@ietf.org mailing address, a
copy for reference. I'll make sure all future replies are to ipv6@ietf.org.
- Forwarded Message -
> From: Mark Smith
> To: Andrew McGregor
> Cc: "6...@ietf.org" <6...@ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, 29 March 2013 6:3
29 matches
Mail list logo
