be sure to understand footnote. almost 10% of the atlas probes which
think they have ipv6 connectivity actually do not. so one has to
subtract that 9.94% from all entries in fail% column.
if you are unfamiliar with the ncc atlas project, grab your board and go
to https://atlas.ripe.net/
randy
[cross-posting 6man / 6lo]
Samita Chakrabarti et al,
Great draft which addresses important issues for low-power wireless network
technologies.
After reading the draft, it seems to me that you would benefit adding one more
use case -
and addressing the derived requirement(s).
Proposed use
be sure to understand footnote. almost 10% of the atlas probes which
think they have ipv6 connectivity actually do not. so one has to
subtract that 9.94% from all entries in fail% column.
if you are unfamiliar with the ncc atlas project, grab your board and go
to https://atlas.ripe.net/
I don't quite understand what he is testing?
just sending large packets?
or as the subject says, fragmented packets?
or path MTU discovery?
This is what I see for various IPv6 payloads (large ICMPv6 echo
requests)
beyond that, emile would have to speak for himself
randy
Fernando,
I'm not sure if this attack is all that serious since there is
always an RPF check for multicast.
As it says in the draft:
It should be noted that if the multicast RPF check is used (e.g.
to prevent routing loops), this would prevent an attacker from
forging the
On 02/09/2013 17:55, Ray Hunter wrote:
Brian E Carpenter mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
2 September 2013 03:38
Ray,
So AFAICS the u/l restriction and uniqueness restriction is only
relevant when EUI64 is used in the context of specific LAN hardware, but
perhaps not all router interface
Hi,
The IPv6 flow label is defined by RFC 6437. This isn't just an editorial
correction - the rules about how to set the flow label are in 6437,
not in 2460.
I believe that this draft (and draft-baker-ipv6-isis-dst-flowlabel-routing)
needs some extra text explaining how it's compatible with the
I thought we had been over this ground and come up with text you found
acceptable? Did I inadvertently change it, or are you just bringing up the
topic again?
On Sep 2, 2013, at 5:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
The IPv6 flow label is defined by RFC 6437.
On 08/31/2013 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi Fernando,
I'm biased, but I'd prefer the reference (your first suggestion), unless
the ext-transmit draft gets stuck in the process, in which case you could
make an editorial change later, even up to AUTH48.
As noted, I'm open to any of
On 03/09/2013 14:49, Fred Baker (fred) wrote:
I thought we had been over this ground and come up with text you found
acceptable? Did I inadvertently change it, or are you just bringing up the
topic again?
I looked at the new drafts, and concluded that a little explanation
would be useful -
Hi Fernando,
On 03/09/2013 12:20, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 08/31/2013 10:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi Fernando,
I'm biased, but I'd prefer the reference (your first suggestion), unless
the ext-transmit draft gets stuck in the process, in which case you could
make an editorial change
11 matches
Mail list logo
