On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Robert Elz k...@munnari.oz.au wrote:
everyone knows that if one sends fragmented packets
performance goes out the window. Perfectly acceptable result, and no
changes at all to v6 specs are needed to get to that.
coughedns0 + dnsssec == +1pkt responses/cough
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Nalini Elkins
nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com wrote:
53 = not good. Just because some people are re-using old hardware cards
they had hanging around does not mean everyone has to go along with it.
define old.
define 'hanging around'
define the location from
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Nalini Elkins
nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com wrote:
If there is consensus that EH's are valuable - then, maybe the way forward
should be to:
1. Decide how to get to the L4 header best.
2. Maybe a recommendation on how much of the header should be read
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Ray Hunter v6...@globis.net wrote:
Christopher Morrow mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com
10 June 2013 17:22
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Nalini Elkins
Some of the discussion already had talks about ordering and optimum
method to find X in the header
Just a question about this idea in general, if one of the reasons to
do it is to save middleboxes from doing 'lots of work' ... wouldn't a
smart attacker just not put this header in? and then choke the
middleboxes?
what's the incentive for a source to add this header? (it's not in
their interest
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Chris,
On 2011-11-14 16:06, Christopher Morrow wrote:
Just a question about this idea in general, if one of the reasons to
do it is to save middleboxes from doing 'lots of work' ... wouldn't a
smart
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
Am 29.09.2011 09:30, schrieb Jeroen Massar:
You do realize that the RIRs are providing exactly what you describe? :)
- globally guaranteed unique (due to registry) large address prefixes
Which is why from
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
Hi,
On 29.09.2011 15:44, Christopher Morrow wrote:
have to help in the educational process a bit, but hiding behind
'private addressing' and 'we never want to ... oops, we connected to
the internet!' just isn't
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
It's too bad computer science is not a science, or we would actually
look at the past, and this mistakes that were made, to build tomorrow's
systems. ALGs were a mistake.
I like algs for some things but agree with dan here...
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
Hi,
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where manufacturers
(e.g, those of cars, airplanes, or smart metering environments)
would
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:53 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Roland Bless
but there are similar reasons for using ULAs:
- They are not intended to be routed in the Internet
- They use a well-known prefix to allow for easy filtering at
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
Occasionally the subject comes up: /64 (and SLAAC) is bad because it is
easy to DoS routers by getting to perform too much ND.
I suppose the same might be true of ARP. Has it
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas - (hoping to fan the discussion) I think operators have expressed the
desire to operate networks in DHCP-only mode, and the response has been No,
you don't really want to operate your networks that way.
one
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
albert.e.manfr...@boeing.com wrote:
Mark Smith wrote:
Mark, as I suggested previously, DHCP is useful in cases where you need the
IP addresses of hosts in a network to be predictable. I have no idea why
cable systems want DHCP, but I'm
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
ok, so ... as a thought experiment, in v4 you wake up, decide you have
no address and are supposed to dhcp for that..
in v6, you wake up decide you have no address (and don't know if v4/v6
are available)... if you are
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:12 PM, basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com wrote:
I support elevating the requirement for DHCPv6 on nodes to a SHOULD.
+1
(and thanks!)
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Gawd, I love these sorts of discussions.
snip
And to be clear, I suspect we will not be approving any HBH options
any time soon. We know they are generally a bad idea. It is unlikely
that the reasons that HBH are a last
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
Hi,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
My feeling is this:
hop-by-hop processing will happen in slow-path (if you permit it to
happen at all), you can't build a router today with an asic that'll
know how to handle options which
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Christopher Morrow
christopher.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
Hi,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
My feeling is this:
hop-by-hop processing will happen in slow-path (if you permit it to
happen
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Hing-Kam (Kam) Lam hingka...@gmail.com wrote:
The below white paper from Cisco asserts that most vendors including
Cisco process Hop-by-Hop extension headers in CPU (slow path). Is this
correct?
with this option, you will not get
it, your application and other things should never rely upon this
being functional.
if we get to that then... why are we making these exist anyways?
-chris
(I agree that being clear here is a good plan)
Yours,
Joel
On 2/3/2011 9:57 PM, Christopher Morrow
.
On Feb 3, 2011, at 20:17 MST, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Joel M. Halpern j...@joelhalpern.com
wrote:
Lets be a little careful here:
1) If we say No Extension Headers for intermediate processing, and No Hop
By Hop Options, then we are saying that we do not want any
On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Brian Haberman
br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
All,
I am starting a one week consensus call on adopting:
Title : Using 127-bit IPv6 Prefixes on Inter-Router Links
Author(s) : M. Kohno, et al.
Filename :
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 07:01 -0400, Randy Bush wrote:
also, do not underestimate the co$t of the of operational change to move
from dhcp4 to nd/ra. folk who want to keep dns and ip audit may have to
go static without
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
So why aren't operators involving themselves more?
I don't know. I've been involving myself in IETF the past year or so, but
it's not something I can spend huge amounts of time
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Christopher Morrow
christopher.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Mark Smith wrote:
So why aren't operators involving themselves more?
I don't know. I've been involving myself
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr wrote:
Le 8 sept. 2010 à 03:18, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
Hi,
The authors of draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update (now also
including Shane Amante) are working on a new version. One
fundamental issue that has come up is about
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 1:37 AM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 1:02 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
this all gets 'crazy', I suppose if we wanted to route on flow-label
not destination-ip-address this might happen, but ... that seems
'crazy' as I said before :) since
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr wrote:
Le 8 sept. 2010 à 14:52, Christopher Morrow a écrit :
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 5:23 AM, Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr wrote:
Le 8 sept. 2010 à 03:18, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
Thus
some firewalls *will* decide
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The authors of draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update (now also
including Shane Amante) are working on a new version. One
fundamental issue that has come up is about the (lack of)
security properties of the
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Below...
On 2010-09-08 14:44, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
The authors of draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update (now also
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:48 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter
If this is correct, it is futile to assert that the flow label
MUST be delivered unchanged to the destination, because we
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mark Smith
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org wrote:
I think IPv6 CIDR i.e. longest match rule across the whole 128 bits is
really only insurance against having to perform a whole of Internet
upgrade, similar to what had to happen when CIDR was
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 11:26 PM, Mark Smith
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org wrote:
On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:43:21 -0400
Christopher Morrow christopher.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mark Smith
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org wrote
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:06 AM, Pekka Savola pek...@netcore.fi wrote:
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Alain Durand wrote:
This is true for leaf networks where hosts share links with routers.
This is useless in the core of the Internet where you only have
point to point links.
The vendor has no way of
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Mark Smith
i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:23:09 -0400
Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
On Aug 23, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:55:48 -0400
Jared Mauch
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Jared Mauch ja...@puck.nether.net wrote:
Operationally the vendors may be violating some RFC, so lets publish what is
relevant and working today so we can all move on? We can deal with
any additional updates and items with how IPv6 works elsewhere or in a
new
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant)
shem...@cisco.com wrote:
Shane,
-Original Message-
From: Shane Amante [mailto:sh...@castlepoint.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 3:35 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: sth...@nethelp.no; adur...@juniper.net;
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Miya Kohno mko...@juniper.net wrote:
Hi Mark,
*Except /127*, we support rfc3627 and the appendix B.2 of rfc5375.
They
have properly addressed the implication for using longer prefix than
/64.
So where is there reference to Appendix B.2 of RFC5375 in
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM, Christian Huitema
huit...@microsoft.com wrote:
yes. this seems like a case of something that looked like a great idea
12+ years ago (rfc2461 was published in 1998, LOTS of things have
changed since that time) but is upon reflection maybe not a great
idea.
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:22 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Redirects are a key part of the Internet architecture. Always have
been.
Not sure if you actually looked at the configuration sampling I posted, but
redirects are not actually used in networks these days. The only places
where
because of the SHOULD in
RFC 2461 and RFC 4861? Why is this point so hard to understand or being
ignored?
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christopher Morrow
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:55 PM
To: sth
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:54 AM, Ole Troan o...@cisco.com wrote:
one could equally just make a convention to use link-locals with fe80::1 and
fe80::2
and /128s on each side if one needed global addresses for sources to
traceroute etc.
no, ping/monitoring/data-collection fails in this case.
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Ole Troan o...@cisco.com wrote:
please ping my router, it's interface address is:
fe80::20e:cff:fe5c:b001/64
my monitoring system can't ping this to ensure liveness of the
interface either :(
but they can ping whatever global /128 you put on that interface,
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Brian Haberman
br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 7/28/10 6:49 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
(can we call the question in a clean/new email about adoption pls?
There was interest in the room for same.)
That is what I said I would do as soon
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Vishwas Manral vishwas.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Brian,
Or we can strongly recommend that all hosts set the flow label, so
that we can use the 3-tuple {source address, dest address, flow label}.
Using a 3-tuple helps in stateless firewalls/ middle boxes/ ECMP,
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 7:16 PM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian,
On Apr 14, 2010, at 3:26 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Hi,
Common practice in network monitoring and in QoS technologies
is to identify a flow of packets by the 5-tuple
{source address, dest address, source
it also seems, to me at least, that there are a few involved ops folks
saying: Hi, we like the idea of /127, we like the simplicity, we
understand how to do this... could you remove the
subnet-router-anycast bits for 'router' instances and let us get back
to operating this network for you?
It
Apologies for the direct folks, I sent this from the wrong address to the list.
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Christopher Morrow
christopher.mor...@gmail.com wrote:
it also seems, to me at least, that there are a few involved ops folks
saying: Hi, we like the idea of /127, we like
.
Regards,
David Muldowney
Original Message
Subject: RE: Router Alert based Monitoring
From: Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com
Date: Sat, February 27, 2010 5:48 pm
To: 'Christopher Morrow' christopher.mor...@gmail.com
Cc: i
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Frank Bulk frnk...@iname.com wrote:
Why not implement Router Alert with a deny all by default and require the
router engineer to configure ACLs for its use? Doesn't that address the
DoS/resource concern?
out of curiousity, what's the use case for this
router alert, and all things that depend/need it should die a horrible
death. Stealing resources from my network devices is not a nice thing
to do, ever.
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Alan Davy ad...@tssg.org wrote:
Hi All,
Previously we circulated a proposal [Nov 4th 09] about defining a
2010/2/2 Dusan Mudric dmud...@avaya.com:
Hi,
Is there a mechanism to protect against a denial of service attack using
prefixes with very small Valid Lifetimes? RFC 2462, section 5.5.3 e) talks
about it but does not seam to cover the scenario where:
1) A user defines a small Preferred and
2009/11/12 Rémi Denis-Courmont r...@remlab.net:
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:25:59 +0100, Alan Davy ad...@tssg.org wrote:
The point of our proposed solution is to specify a common set of rules
or guidelines for managing the entry of data into the hop by hop option
header data field. The hop by hop
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Ralph Droms rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
OK.
I'll agree that the information about routing changes is available in the
router. Whether the router has all the information needed and the
mechanisms to translate that routing information into policy changes for the
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Ralph Droms rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
They don't actually need a full DHCPv6 server. Support of
Information-request/Reply/Reconfigure would be sufficient.
I think we're spliting hairs... but eventually someone's going to want
to do all portions of dhcpv6 and NOT
different ends
of that spectrum (I suspect). So I suspect that 'routers' will soon
have 'mostly full' dhcpv6 servers in them...
-Chris
On Nov 11, 2009, at 12:09 PM 11/11/09, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Ralph Droms rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
OK.
I'll agree
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant)
shem...@cisco.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 1:35 PM
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Are IPv6
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:35 AM, TJ trej...@gmail.com wrote:
Off the top of my head: A link that has multiple prefixes assigned to it;
perhaps a Global and a ULA or simply multiple Globals ...
right, like the original 'how to multihome in ipv6', one router
interface, 1 prefix from each upstream
On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Vijayrajan ranganathan
vija...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
If I want to use more than 1 loopback IPv4 address, I can
assign one from 127.0.0.0/8 address range.
Does IANA reserve some IPv6 address range for loopback communication?
If not, what is the best
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Ross Callonrcal...@juniper.net wrote:
There isn't all that much IPv6 traffic right now (some please correct me if
this is wrong), and the ramp-up speed seems relatively
'much global ipv6 traffic'. There are places with more ipv6 traffic,
where LAG/ECMP is
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Francis Dupontfrancis.dup...@fdupont.fr wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
PS: IMHO this is an example of IPv6 misunderstanding: the solution
was developed for IPv4 and as it doesn't fit exactly into IPv6
in place of adjusting the solution you propose to
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnumiljit...@muada.com wrote:
On 5 aug 2009, at 19:34, Christopher Morrow wrote:
You may see 2-3 year cycle on new asics for this feature to appear...
given 1-2 years for haggling/bugs/blah it's safe to say 3-5 yrs before
hardware
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Margaret Wassermanm...@sandstorm.net wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
This I don't recall at all... I think part of my question is we (as a
group) are assuming that the reasons for requiring ipv6 udp checksums
as stated +10 years
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Marshall Eubankst...@americafree.tv wrote:
On Aug 7, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Margaret Wassermanm...@sandstorm.net
wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
This I don't recall at all
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Havard Eidnesh...@uninett.no wrote:
the O UDP checksum proposal obsoletes all the today deployed nodes
which check them (so all hosts I know and perhaps a lot of routers too)
OK, so what are the other options for encapsulating a packet in a IPv6
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Noel Chiappaj...@mercury.lcs.mit.edu wrote:
From: Christopher Morrow christopher.mor...@gmail.com
While a non-lisp node receiving a LISP udp/0 packet dropping it seems
fine to me, a translator dropping a udp/0|null-sum packet instead
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Shane Amantesh...@castlepoint.net wrote:
Sam,
On Aug 5, 2009, at 09:01 MDT, Sam Hartman wrote:
Shane == Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net writes:
Shane Take a look at the following URL:
Shane http://www.sixxs.net/faq/connectivity/?faq=ipv6transit
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Sam Hartmanhartmans-i...@mit.edu wrote:
Shane == Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net writes:
Shane With respect to #2, SP's have been mandating that they only
Shane buy v6- capable HW for the last /several years/ as part of
Shane the normal growth/
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Margaret Wassermanm...@sandstorm.net wrote:
Hi Shane,
On Aug 5, 2009, at 12:50 PM, Shane Amante wrote:
To bring this back up a level, while it's /possible/ to encourage vendors
to adopt the IPv6 flow-label as input-keys to their hash-calculations for
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Margaret Wassermanm...@sandstorm.net wrote:
On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
What was the original reason for removing the ability to do zero
checksums on udp in v6? Are we sure that that decision is still
sensible/appropriate in today's
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Dino Farinaccid...@cisco.com wrote:
Because we want to make all combinations work. Because we want IPv6 to be
real.
Why move it to another draft when the same contention will occur.
The opponents just have to face the music. And if they are going to take
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Benny Amorsenbenny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com writes:
There's no retransmission in UDP.
Obviously not by the protocol stack. That doesn't stop applications from
retransmitting. TFTP or SIP won't give up just because
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Margaret Wassermanm...@lilacglade.org wrote:
Since we have standards-track protocols that indicate that UDP checksums
must not be zero in IPv6 (for good reasons), I believe that we should use
(enumerate good reasons pls)
valid UDP checksums in IPv6 outer
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Francis
Dupontfrancis.dup...@fdupont.fr wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Thoughts?
= I am strongly against changing all IPv6 implementations.
IMHO the simplest solution is to drop UDP packets with zero checksums
(as far as I know all IPv4
(hopefully this time gmail selects the right outbound from addr grr)
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:24 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Out of curiosity, what's the signal back to the sender that his/her
packet was dropped?? NFS (in some implementations) doesn't checksum
UDP packets, DNS doesn't, there
fragmented UDP packets
with a zero checksum. However, all of them were due to malicious or
broken behavior; a port scan and first fragments of IP packets that
are not a multiple of 8 bytes.
Hesham
On 28/07/09 6:14 PM, Christopher Morrow christopher.mor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Jul
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Francis
Dupontfrancis.dup...@fdupont.fr wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Francis
Dupontfrancis.dup...@fdupont.fr wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Thoughts?
= I am strongly against
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Francis
Dupontfrancis.dup...@fdupont.fr wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
I strongly recommend that people read section 1 of RFC 2765. Here is some of
the relevant text:
Fragmented IPv4 UDP packets that do not contain a UDP checksum (i.e.
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Suresh Krishnan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bernd,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I'm contacting you as I've a question regarding the Hop-by-Hop header
option 'Router Alert' and its exact use. I hope I don't disturb you...
I am generally against any new
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Suresh Krishnan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Suresh Krishnan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Bernd,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I'm contacting you as I've a question regarding the Hop-by-Hop header
On Dec 5, 2007 2:39 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ULA is LOCAL.
It has nothing to do with PI.
sort of correct... I believe the fear here is that if you are in a
world of provider-assigned ip space without any simple hope for
renumbering you will look for ULA-x as a 'no
Is there an existing RFC/Draft discussion of RH0 pitfalls and
solutions to those pitfalls that discussses more than just the
host-based problems? Pekka has:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-savola-ipv6-rtheader-00.txt
which looks like it's mostly host-based. There doesn't look like
On 7/26/07, Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
The working group's work items are as follows:
o Shepherd completion of standardization of the RH0 Deprecation document
...
All new work items not listed above require the approval of the working
group and IESG before they will be
On 7/6/07, Joe Abley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6-Jul-2007, at 00:31, Christopher Morrow wrote:
I hesitate to get rid or something because of this sole reason, I
think another answer would be to make paying attention to it just
optional for routing gear (or all things, honestly I really
On 7/2/07, Rémi Denis-Courmont [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le jeudi 28 juin 2007, ext Bob Hinden a écrit :
This starts a two week IPv6 working group last call on advancing
Title : Deprecation of Type 0 Routing Headers in IPv6
Author(s) : J. Abley, et al.
networks may decide to honor or not the 'potentially
harmful things', but that's their individual decision and shouldn't be
baked into the spec if at all possible.
-Chris
Thanks,
Vishwas
On 7/5/07, Christopher Morrow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/2/07, Rémi Denis-Courmont [EMAIL PROTECTED
On 6/14/07, Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we want the advice in this section to be taken seriously, do we
need to distinguish between firewall policy in end-sites and packet
filters that might be added to core/ISP networks as a mitigation of
the specific problems associated
On 6/15/07, james woodyatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For my part, I'd rather not try to answer this question. If pressed,
I would say that such a device ought not try to be a filter at all.
If that's not possible, then the device should permit all routing
headers. More damage will be done by
89 matches
Mail list logo
