In your previous mail you wrote:
B) is usually correct, although this depends on the semantics of the lower
layer in question. If it is Ethernet, by changing the MAC address, you have
made a new interface and so the old address end point has gone away. It is
usually best to drop the link
In your previous mail you wrote:
The only way to address that condition is to make MAC change and address
renewal an atomic operation.
= in fact it is not required to be really atomic, only to seem to be
atomic for an external observer (i.e., it is enough to shutdown the NIC
during the
On 4/4/13 7:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 4, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Richard Roy dick...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
[RR] As I am sure you know, privacy is a cross-layer issue. Any layer that
compromises privacy, compromises it for the user/ITS station. That said,
FNTP/WSMP replace the IP layer with a
On Apr 7, 2013, at 11:07 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
So that possibly makes sense internally to the car, although possibly not.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me between cars, except perhaps in the
most restricted applications. When you talk about capacity constrained RF
There is an issue with using a MAC-based link local address on an interface
that does not have that MAC address, which is that any other interface
using that MAC that turns up is going to fail DAD. Normally this will be
another interface on the same device, but even then it can be an issue.
