I support the idea of making DHCPv6 a SHOULD, and like the text revision
proposed by Bob as amended by Ralph.
As to the clarification of what to do in the event of inconsistent
information when both methods are used, I agree that RFC 4862 covers
it. If pushed, citing that RFC would be
://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew...@sri.com
, leaving RFC
4291 as controlling the standard.
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew...@sri.com
IETF IPv6 working
: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew...@sri.com
mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389
Sri - I agree with all of your comments including the statement that
RO is a key feature of MIPv6. I would add a caveat that there is not
much incentive for a large scale server to implement RO, as it benefits
the mobile node user rather than the application or the hosting service.
It seems
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew...@sri.com
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
as 'amused' or 'bored')
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/sri_reading_assessment/index.htm
International http://www.ihop.com/
Fort Monmouth http://www.monmouthpark.com/ Branch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Branch Office http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/ - IPv6 http
as 'amused' or 'bored')
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/sri_reading_assessment/index.htm
International http://www.ihop.com/
Fort Monmouth http://www.monmouthpark.com/ Branch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Branch Office http://www.nbc.com/The_Office/ - IPv6 http
-daily.html
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032610-dns-ipv6-whitelist.html
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew...@sri.com
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew
the Text
Representation sections (2.2 and 2.3).
Ed J.
also seems very significant that RFC 1924 is 4291 backwards
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or ed.jankiew...@sri.com
recognized as wrongheaded or counterproductive. I feel very
fortunate to have had his support in my work almost from the first day I
surfaced in the IPv6 space.
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389
to advance it?
Bob
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI
Speaking as an individual, but drawing on my experience as a contributor
to one of the profile specifications you mention, it seems this draft
could be one of the following:
1. a roadmap/reading list for IPv6 implementors and evaluators (thus
informational, and without any RFC 2119 language)
you on the edge of the prairie, where all the network engineers are
above average.
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
roadmap.doc
Description: MS-Word document
/
*draft-vogt-durand-virtual-ip6-connectivity*
“helpers”
*Draft-denis-behave-v4v6exthdr*
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or [EMAIL
IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards
-chairs
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI
Can you provide a citation to some authority for export restrictions on
IPv6? I have not heard that before and find it surprising (though not
impossible). That would be troubling, because IPsec in and of itself
(and by association IPv6) does not necessarily contain any cryptographic
code,
requirements document mandating that IPv6
nodes must
support IPsec the goverment has been lead to believe that IPv6 by
definition has
built-in security.
Regards,
Mike Taylor
- Original Message
From: Ed Jankiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ipv6
@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003
James:
James Carlson wrote:
Ed Jankiewicz writes:
As Jim Bound has stated many times, IETF defines standards not
deployment, and the Node Requirements revision should reiterate that the
standard for security in IPv6 is IPsec citing RFC 4301 (successor to
2401). OTOH, we at DoD
://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or [EMAIL PROTECTED
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort
That is a good point, does IPsec depend on unanimous support? We
struggled with this in the DoD Profiles. Our rationale for making IPsec
mandatory (except at the moment for some simple appliances) was that for
IPsec to be a feasible solution it needs to be available throughout the
network.
://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or [EMAIL PROTECTED
reiterate my
willingness to contribute or review.
Ed Jankiewicz, SRI International
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
this option under any circumstances.
Eventually the IETF gathered the collective will to update the
standard, but as implementors we would have been derelict in our duty
to our customers had we waited for the IETF.
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
29 matches
Mail list logo
