Ole,
On 2013-05-24, at 4:33 PM, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
...
All of this falls apart with link-local addresses and RFC 6874. Because the
client is required to remove the zoneid from the outgoing request, the URIs
it gets back from the server are no longer reachable.
how is
Kerry,
On 2013-05-24, at 1:58 PM, Kerry Lynn ker...@ieee.org wrote:
Michael,
Can I echo what Tom and Christian have said - that you join the 6man working
group and start by clearly and concisely stating the problem that this RFC
poses
for your application and how you suggest we fix it?
Warning: post contains dumb questions.
Michael Sweet wrote:
Christian,
On 2013-05-24, at 1:45 PM, Christian Huitema huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
Can we move from the process discussion to the technical discussion?
Michael raised an interesting issue, and we have to analyze it. The
I'm increasingly baffled by the use case. If the host is
in a context where it can reach a server *and* has more than
one interface (such that a ZoneID is needed at all), it
shouldn't be using a link local address anyway - it
should have configured a global scope address (possibly
under a ULA
Ray,
On 2013-05-28, at 3:34 PM, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
Warning: post contains dumb questions.
No such thing! :)
...
All of this falls apart with link-local addresses and RFC 6874. Because the
client is required to remove the zoneid from the outgoing request, the URIs
it gets
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 26/05/2013 20:51, Ray Hunter wrote:
I think that is worth pointing out in the draft that Contrary to
RFC2460 Section 4, middleboxes, such as firewalls, load balancers or
packet classifiers, MAY examine and process the entire IPv6 packet
Hi Fernando,
Comments inline.
On May 26, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
HI Alissa,
Thanks for posting this. Please find my comments inline...
On 05/24/2013 11:33 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
The rows of the table are the address generation methods that have
Brian,
On 2013-05-28, at 4:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm increasingly baffled by the use case. If the host is
in a context where it can reach a server *and* has more than
one interface (such that a ZoneID is needed at all), it
shouldn't be using a link local
On 28/05/2013 09:16, C. M. Heard wrote:
On Mon, 27 May 2013, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 26/05/2013 20:51, Ray Hunter wrote:
I think that is worth pointing out in the draft that Contrary to
RFC2460 Section 4, middleboxes, such as firewalls, load balancers or
packet classifiers, MAY examine
-Original Message-
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:13 PM
To: Dave Thaler
Cc: Alissa Cooper; 6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org; Brian Haberman;
6...@ietf.org; Ray Hunter; tom.petch; Christian Huitema; He Xuan
Subject: Re: Comments on
[...] I could rely on the
ICMPv6 address resolution failed error messages sent by your local
router (i.e., if I receive one of such messages, you're not there. If I
don't,
you are).
Ok, yes that one is interesting.
An attacker just needs one vector to be successful.
Agree.
11 matches
Mail list logo
