-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shem...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 7:24 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Antonio Querubin
Cc: Thomas Narten; Fred Baker (fred); 6man-...@tools.ietf.org; SAVI Mailing
List; william.allen.simp...@gmail.com; Hesham Soliman; i...@core3
Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shem...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 8:07 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Antonio Querubin
Cc: Thomas Narten; Fred Baker (fred
Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:wbee...@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 4:48 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; Antonio Querubin
Cc: Thomas Narten; Fred Baker (fred
something?
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shem...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 7:39 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; Fred Baker (fred); Erik Nordmark; Hesham Soliman; JINMEI
Tatuya / 神明達哉; Thomas
Colleagues,
I may be missing something, but it appears that, in the cases described, the
two hosts downstream of two separate cable modems are off link to each other.
This brings up the question: Do there two cable modems constitute two virtual
interfaces, like two VLANs on the same physical
Colleagues,
In support of one our customers, we tested several Cisco implementations and
found that they work just fine with prefix lengths not equal to 64. That said,
most operating systems we tested only support a 64-bit prefix for address
configuration, SLAAC or DHCPv6. Because of this, I
their own VLAN.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 1:44 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; Ole Troan; Perkins, Carroll G
Cc
Colleagues,
I am looking into using DHCPv6 to assign UGA and ULA to the same interface.
Does anyone have any experience with this? Many thanks in advance for any help
you can give.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
Center for Enterprise Modernization
MITRE Corp.
: Duncan, Richard J. (Jeremy) CONTRACTOR
[mailto:richard.duncan_contrac...@dtra.mil]
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 9:22 AM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; Bob Hinden
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Implementation specific Interface-ID
Jeff-
Yes, but nothing in the IEEE spec states anything that using the FF
Vijay et al.,
RFC 4291 states in section 5.1:
For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary value 000,
Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in Modified
EUI-64 format.
Further, RFC 4291 is referenced in RFC 2464 (actually, it is the previous
Prakash and Suresh,
Another consideration when using privacy addresses is that it is unwieldy to
use DDNS map them to an FQDN. Since they are to be private, this may not be an
issue.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
Alex,
While I believe that Suresh is correct in the case of RFC 2464, I am very
interested in the Ethernet implementation that supports non-64 bit IID. Do you
have a reference for this implementation? Further, are you interested in
supporting non-64 bit network prefixes? If so, let me know
Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: mark_andr...@isc.org [mailto:mark_andr...@isc.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 11:37 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: peter.h...@nokia.com; shem...@cisco.com; Huang, Frank; Sherman, Kurt T.;
ipv6@ietf.org
size.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pek...@netcore.fi]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 1:03 AM
To: peter.h...@nokia.com
Cc: shem...@cisco.com; Dunn, Jeffrey H.; Huang, Frank
Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Peterson [mailto:thom...@iol.unh.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 3:38 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: Rémi Denis-Courmont; ipv6@ietf.org; Huang, Frank; Sherman, Kurt T.; Liou,
Chern; steve_eiser...@uscourts.gov; ipv6-boun
Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: mark_andr...@isc.org [mailto:mark_andr...@isc.org]
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:01 PM
To: peter.h...@nokia.com
Cc: shem...@cisco.com; Dunn, Jeffrey H.; Huang, Frank; Sherman, Kurt T.;
ipv6@ietf.org
Colleagues,
We have been performing some PMTUD tests and have found that different
operating systems handle PMTUD differently. Specifically, we found that the
ping application behaves in the following way when the PMTU is set to 1280
and a 1500 octet ICMPv6 echo request is sent to that routed
[mailto:rde...@simphalempin.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 2:33 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; ipv6-boun...@ietf.org; v6...@ops.ietf.org; Sherman, Kurt
T.; Liou, Chern; steve_eiser...@uscourts.gov; Huang, Frank; Grayeli, Parisa
Subject: Re: End System PMTUD behavior question
Le
: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:00 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: Rémi Denis-Courmont; ipv6@ietf.org; Huang, Frank; Sherman, Kurt T.; Liou,
Chern; steve_eiser...@uscourts.gov; ipv6-boun...@ietf.org; v6...@ops.ietf.org;
Grayeli, Parisa
Subject: Re: End System PMTUD behavior question
Hi Jeffrey
Message-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shem...@cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:35 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; ipv6-boun...@ietf.org; v6...@ops.ietf.org; 6man mailing
list
Cc: Sherman, Kurt T.; Liou, Chern; steve_eiser...@uscourts.gov; Huang, Frank;
Grayeli, Parisa
Subject: RE
Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:24 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; steve_eiser...@ao.uscourts.gov; Internet
Architecture Board; 6man mailing list; IESG; RFC Editor
Subject: Re: Protocol Action: 'Reserved IPv6 Interface
Message-
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 10:02 AM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; The IESG; IETF-Announce
Cc: 6man chair; 6man mailing list; steve_eiser...@ao.uscourts.gov;
Internet Architecture Board; RFC Editor
Subject: RE: Protocol Action: 'Reserved
Colleagues,
I have a question about the following language in section 2.0:
For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
value 000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be
constructed in Modified EUI-64 format.
Although I do not see a MUST in this sentence,
I have been lurking on this discussion for a while and have one
observation. Regardless of the values of the MO bits or the prefixes
(and their lengths) that are advertised, I suggest that the client not
send any messages until it receives a General Query (RFC 3810). If
the client does not hear
Pekka,
My comments are inline.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 3:48 AM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: Brian Dickson; Brian E
:43 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sherman, Kurt T.;
ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: what problem
assign
/108s to support /112s or somesuch.)
((or, at the very least, they could switch from assigning /56s to /64s
and
thus -requiring- (versus enabling) you to do this type of
subnetting))
/TJ
-Original Message-
From: Dunn, Jeffrey H. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October
Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED
to
be in the last rather than the first octet.
Thoughts?
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 1:07 PM
To: Brian Dickson
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H
: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sherman, Kurt
T.; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non-64 bit prefixes
Janos,
You raise an excellent point with respect to using nibble boundaries.
If one uses a partitioning scheme like that in RFC 3531 AND require
that partitions (sets of prefixes) be on nibble boundaries, a /32
allocation with a 64-bit prefix length contains only 8 partitions of 4
bits each.
TJ,
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I never said any bits
were lost, just that longer prefixes make logical address
partitioning easier and more flexible. Am I wrong?
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
Colleagues,
I am glad to see that my initial humble e-mail has sparked such debate.
Based on discussions with some of my colleagues, I feel the need to
make a few addition points concerning extended addressing. Although I
see no engineering reason why SLAAC will not work with non-64 bit
Message-
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 9:11 AM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: Brian Dickson; Brian E Carpenter; Alexandru Petrescu; IETF IPv6
Mailing List; Pekka Savola; Ron Bonica; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Pasi Eronen; Sherman, Kurt T.; [EMAIL PROTECTED
Tim,
That sounds more like a call to update the spec than to ignore the
additional functionality available with variable length prefixes.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
(301) 448-6965 (mobile)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:08 PM
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: Dunn, Jeffrey H.; IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ron Bonica;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Pasi Eronen; Sherman, Kurt T.;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; V6ops Chairs;
Martin, Cynthia E.
Subject: Re: what problem is solved by proscribing non
I second Brian's points that:
1. DHCPv6, or more flexible versions of SLAAC, CGA, etc., are needed
2. Basically, in the absence of the ability to subnet arbitrarily (on
non-64 bit boundaries), I'm at the mercy of my upstream.
Further, I would like to summarize the reasons offered on this list
I also suggest that the AH requirement be SHOULD, or even better MUST,
for nodes implementing OSPFv3, RFC 2740. This is based on the removal
of the authentication LSA from OSPFv3, which was done with the
expectation that AH would be mandatory. Thoughts?
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems
with integrity
I suggest we require implementations to do one or more.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
-Original Message-
From: Vishwas Manral [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 1:10 PM
To: Tim Enos
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; Dunn, Jeffrey H
:45 PM
To: Dunn, Jeffrey H.
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Security Requirements for IPv6 Node Req summary
Hi Jeff,
You are close but still not quite there.
OSPFv2 had some fields in all packets (LSA is not a packet but a
content in a packet) to send a Hash
Tony,
Many thanks for amplifying my push to have AH a MUST. You point is
well taken and one I had not though of.
Best Regards,
Jeffrey Dunn
Info Systems Eng., Lead
MITRE Corporation.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tony Hain
Sent:
Colleagues,
While I agree with Jim in principal, I should add that the entire
premise of a one size fits all IPv6 node description will probably
suffer from being the too low lowest common denominator. To wit, by
the definition in 4294, a host runs the gamut of complex servers to UDP
speakers
Colleagues,
Although I do not speak for either DISA or NIST, I believe that the
spirit of Jeremy's request was that the specifications (RFCs) required
by the DISA and NIST documents be considered for inclusion in the
updated node requirements document. I am working on he deltas between
the NIST
Erik and Sandeep,
Have a look at RFC 4861 (it obsoletes RFC 2461). The use of the Router
Lifetime variable is clarified:
Router Lifetime
16-bit unsigned integer. The lifetime associated
with the default router in units of seconds. The
44 matches
Mail list logo
