Re: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS Server)

2004-06-09 Thread George Gross
Hi, On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Masataka Ohta wrote: > George Gross; > > Hi, > > > There have been several reliable multicast mechanisms discussed on MANET, > > Reliable multicast works over mostly reliable multicast transport. > > However, in this case of conge

Re: WLAN (was Re: IPv6 Host Configuration of Recursive DNS Server)

2004-06-08 Thread George Gross
Hi, unreliable flooding of control/routing packets is a long standing problem in the MANET working group [1]. Recently the MANET working group formed a design team that will tackle this problem among others that arise when extending OSPF for wireless media. AFAIK, their design will be IP-v

Re: names for non-global addresses

2003-12-06 Thread George Gross
Hi, how about "private scope addresses"? or when all else fails, draw the name out of a hat one word at a time ;o) br, George On Sat, 6 Dec 2003, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Keith Moore wrote: > > > > > I've chewed on this for quite a while, and I think some derivative > > > of "p

Re: set Global ID field to SHA hash of domain name

2003-09-12 Thread George Gross
Hi Iljitsch, On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On vrijdag, sep 12, 2003, at 11:07 Europe/Amsterdam, George Gross wrote: > > > At the risk of triggering another firestorm of pro/con debate, is > > there any reason why the centrally assigned Global ID def

Re: set Global ID field to SHA hash of domain name

2003-09-12 Thread George Gross
Hi Zefram, On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Zefram wrote: > George Gross wrote: > > At the risk of triggering another firestorm of pro/con debate, is > >there any reason why the centrally assigned Global ID defined by > >hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt could not be simply the

set Global ID field to SHA hash of domain name

2003-09-12 Thread George Gross
Hi, At the risk of triggering another firestorm of pro/con debate, is there any reason why the centrally assigned Global ID defined by hinden-ipv6-global-local-addr-02.txt could not be simply the low-order 40 bits of a SHA hash of a domain name? i.e. if you own the domain name, you get the