I pre-apologize, as always, for my ignorance, but...is there an
implementation of this? Specifically, I'm mildly concerned about this
for link-local addresses.
Compliant implementations cannot even begin any IPv6 link-local
operations until the secret key has been loaded from stable storage.
Was there discussion of the status of this document in Atlanta, and I
just missed it?
One tweak I think the document might need is just a single-sentence
clarification that this does not modify the start-up randomization for
the first RS, vis. the MAX_RTR_SOLICITATION_DELAY (i.e. start-up
random
I don't think that your proposed solution is necessary, since
IPv6 has the Flow Label, that - if set by the source - may be
very well suited for your purpose (tracking flows along a path).
Please see http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis/
for more details.
Agreed.
I
If the latter paragraph only should be executed, the address given
by rogue RA remains, right ?
My reading would be that on receipt of a 0-lifetime RA that only the
second paragraph would be executed (lifetime timeout). However, all
hosts receiving the 0-lifetime RA would then have to
2009/9/18 Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org:
Vijayrajan ranganathan 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 address
2009/11/9 Arifumi Matsumoto arif...@nttv6.net:
Erik,
On 2009/11/10, at 10:43, Erik Kline wrote:
If the latter paragraph only should be executed, the address given
by rogue RA remains, right ?
My reading would be that on receipt of a 0-lifetime RA that only the
second paragraph would
+1
2009/7/30 Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com:
I'm in favour
Brian C
On 2009-07-30 01:42, Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
This is a consensus call on adopting:
Title : A Recommendation for IPv6 Address Text Representation
Author(s) : S. Kawamura, M. Kawashima
From the RFC excerpt you gave, I would infer that on DAD failure of a global
address, the router doesn't install the address, and forwards all traffic
to/from that network based on the contents of its forwarding table. It does
no special filtering of packets that are sourced from or destined
Are the terms sufficiently broad that you might consider that it
(somehow) covers, say, dual-stack lite? If so, I'd think at least an
IPR is in order.
(note: I've only taken a cursory glance at a USPTO diagram while very
sleepy so perhaps the comment is irrelevant)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:34
2008/10/16 Arnaud Ebalard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
Suresh Krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi Folks,
We have resolved all the issues raised during the last IETF meeting
in the latest version of this draft. We would like the people who had
issues with the earlier versions of this draft to
And we're still persisting with a recommendation for /126 for p2p
router links and against /127?
I guess that's the current state of things.
bias disclosure: I'm in favour of /127, vis.
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/26/program/apops/matsuzaki-ipv6-p2p.pdf
In light of Maz's presentation (see
Oh man. Tragic. :(
On 10/30/07, Jeroen Massar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I unfortunately just noticed the following being spread around.
This is a real big loss :(
From http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20071030220114
12 matches
Mail list logo
