Hi,
Sorry for late response. It's the summer holiday season here. O:-)
On 07/06/2012 05:59 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
"Aleksi" == Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Aleksi> Within an hour, all the IPv4 addresses in the pool for our
Aleksi> NAT64 were registered to t
r a Router
Advertisement Flags Option for "do not use privacy extensions here" and
that this was used in all setups that use DNS64 name servers, or that
all such setups should use Managed Address Configuration aka DHCPv6
address configuration.
--
Aleksi Suhonen, Researcher
age of labels and/or preferences
over scopes for proper address selection.
Just a couple of cents from,
--
Aleksi Suhonen, Researcher
Department of Communications Engineering
Tampere University of Technology
IET
her by virtue of having one routing table per source address.)
When trying to figure out how to automate the routing table creation and
deletion for my algorithm, I've already run into the problem I described
above
--
Aleksi Suhonen, Researcher
Department of Communic
:
Title : Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links
Author(s) : M. Kohno, et al.
Filename : draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-03.txt
Pages : 9
Date : 2010-10-09
as a 6MAN WG document.
On 10/11/10 03:28, Tina TSOU wrote:
> ＋1
>
> B. R.
> Tina
+1
--
Aleksi Suhonen
o hoping that some day we will have enough IPv6
traffic on an IXP to fill even a single LAG member circuit. O:-)
Having said all of the above, I don't want to stand in the way
of progress. I just wanted to voice my concerns.
Yours,
--
Aleksi Suhonen
Department of Communi
d
yield "yes"es?
--
Aleksi Suhonen
Department of Communications Engineering
Tampere University of Technology
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
, but they can't attempt to
change it.
Hmm ... OK, that makes sense. I don't believe in it tho.
"0 FL mutable" would work reasonably well with both world views,
as there's one chance in a million that rnd() would yield zero.
One connection in a million would fail, and c
ize will become a serious limitation
to more complex policy tables. Since no one else has voiced this,
I thought I'd do it, since I had to generate a message to test
whether an issue I reported to the IETF postmaster has been resolved...
--
Aleksi Suhonen
Department of Commun
urce-host w/ a pseudo-random number +
5-tuple[1]? (Please read on before answering :-)
Why does a receiving host care about the flow label at all? It exists to
make sure that all intermediate nodes give correct treatment to the
flow, but once it reaches its destination it's "safe
in the header (e.g. from DSCP?) to signal that the flow label has
been fiddled with. This bit should of course also be reset at the same
time as the label is reset.
--
Aleksi Suhonen
IETF IPv6 working group mailing lis
ctates that "you SHALL have to use routing protocol #3 in conjunction
with this prefix." If there's some re-delegation going on, then that
option MUST be copied as is.
--
Aleksi Suhonen
Department of Communications Engineering
Tampere University of Technol
r the algorithm completes is passed to the
calling application, instead of just the first address.
--
Aleksi Suhonen, Research Assistant
Department of Communications Engineering
Tampere University of Technology
olunteered O:-)
(P.S. I'm not on the shim6 list, so please forward this message there,
if you feel it should be discussed there as well.)
--
Aleksi Suhonen
Department of Communications Engineering
Tampere Universit
quoted are there to explain how the algorithm can
be used to perform "one sided address selection", for backwards
compatibility with RFC3484 which doesn't support any other notions.
I guess I should move those paragraphs into some other part of the
document and maybe give them a m
these ideas are?
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-axu-addr-sel-00
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3484
[3] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3493
--
Aleksi Suhonen
Department of Communications Engineering
Tampere University of Technology
---
don't want to use a certain prefix...
--
Aleksi Suhonen
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
be used twice" and "is possible to use ..." are IMO
misleading, since :: cannot be used twice.
Maybe you should use something like "when there are two or more
alternative placings for ::"?
--
Aleksi Suhonen
--
as a router between all the virtual OSes and the outside world.
Another solution is that some virtualization platforms (at least vmware
and xen afaik) offer unique generated MAC addresses to each virtual OS,
so the standard EUI-64 method will yield unique IIDs.
--
Aleksi Suhonen
s, I guess?
A good API would make future improvements in the address selection
algorithm easier to transfer from the drawing board into production use.
Thoughts? Comments? Or does it exist already and I'm just ignoran
make future improvements in the address selection
algorithm easier to transfer from the drawing board into production use.
Thoughts? Comments? Or does it exist already and I'm just ignorant?
--
Aleksi Suhonen
C3442.
(DISCLAIMER:)
How or whether the address selection algorithm uses these more specific
routes is IMO less relevant than the fact that it could recognize
address scope from their presence or absence...
--
Aleksi Suhonen
Department of Communications Engineering
T
(for whatever reasons, security, configuration, ...) I think
that might be a good reason to use unicast RS. Or if a mobile host tries
to identify the network by its occupants.
--
Aleksi Suhonen
IETF IPv6 working
dsummer holiday here tomorrow and I have to go
shop for food now, lest I starve over the weekend.
--
Aleksi Suhonen
Department of Communications Engineering
Tampere University of Technology
IETF IPv6
x27;ve been told (by Jari Arkko among others) that 6man would be the
correct working group for this work, but the charter doesn't seem to say
anything about this...
Sincerely awaiting your constructive feedback,
--
Aleksi Suhonen
Department of Communications Engineering
25 matches
Mail list logo
