appreciate it. Thank you.
John Spence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
10
OUIs x 2^24 problem. You are right - still significant - but not
insurmountable.
3) I got on off-list suggestion that maybe CGA is a potential solution
for this, which is a good thought too.
John Spence
Command Information (HQ: Herndon VA)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Bob
ddress)
on my interface. My privacy-only addressing scheme would give me a
globally-routable address. I would be forgoing peer-to-peer capability,
but no more so than a host that used only stateless autoconfiguration.
So, nothing to do with NAT.
John Spence, Director, IPv6 Technical Operatio
s not supported today, I do not believe, but I think it would be a
valuable tool for administrators to have. What is your opinion?
John Spence,
Command Information (HQ: Herndon VA)
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:20 AM
To:
use).
So, my question then is “Do the current or proposed
specs allow me to have an interface with a link-local address and a privacy
address only, no static and no autoconfigured”?
John Spence, Command
Information (HQ: Herndon VA)
[EMAIL PROTECTED
.
John Spence, Command
Information
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
ppropriate.
I like choices. Thanks.
John Spence
----
John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP
Native6, Inc.
IPv6 Training and Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(wk) 206-682-0275
www.native6.com
>-Ori
?
Thanks.
John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP
Native6, Inc.
IPv6 Training and Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 12:04 AM
>To: John Spence
>Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: Question about the need for a "Router Alert
>Option" (RFC 2711) within a Hop-By-Hop Option Extension Header
>(RFC 2460) ...
>
>The router alert opt
m: Brian McGehee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 9:48 AM
>To: 'John Spence'; 'Fred Baker'
>Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>Subject: RE: Question about the need for a "Router Alert
>Option" (RFC 2711)within a Hop-By-Hop Option Extens
x27;t understand the Router Alert Option, but I see a
number of places where it is referenced.
[[Spence]]
From: John Spence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:25 PM
To: 'Fred Baker'
Cc:
Thanks for the quick reply. The Router Alert Option
(RFC 2711) is dated October 1999. It says "This
memo describes a new IPv6 Hop-by-Hop Option type ", so the Router Alert is
designed for the H-B-H Extension header.
----John
Sp
t;intermediate nodes must look at this packet even if it is not
addressed to them", which seems to be the same meaning as Router
Alert.
I must be missing
something. Can someone provide a quick answer, or a pointer to the answer
so I can research it myself?
Tha
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 10:25 PM
> To: John Spence
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Can I generate a prefix shorter than /48 using
> ?
>
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, John Spence wrote:
> > So, in 99% of cases, I suppose
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Hi John,
> >
> > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:55:27 -0700
> > "John Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If my organization is large, and I will petition my ISP
> for a /44,
> >
"claim", say "FC45::/16".
So, just a thought. I believe this draft is about to go RFC, and
I don't want to trip up the process, because it is a very good
draft and I'm anxious to see vendors implement it. Just a
question, really.
John Spence
> -Original Mess
example,
2001:DB8:4:6::/64 and FD92:A054:B18E:6::/64.
But if, for whatever reason, the enterprise chose a single /46
from a single (global) ISP, and wanted to use it all over the
world, they might want a /46 ULA to go with it, I think.
John Spence
> -Original Message-
> From: Mark
draft that would allow me to do
that. Is that correct - there is no provision for generating a
shorter prefix?
John Spence
John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP
Native6, Inc.
IPv6 Training and Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.native
ion
Encapsulating Security Payload
The first four are specified in this document; the last two are
specified in [RFC-2402] and [RFC-2406], respectively.
end --
----
John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP
Nati
hould the ultimate destination *only* act on the D.O. found *after* the RH,
where there is a pre-RH D.O. present?
If someone could point me to the definitive answer I would be grateful.
Thanks.
John Spence
---
John Spence, CCSI, CCNA, CISSP
Native6, Inc.
IPv6 Trainin
20 matches
Mail list logo
