Re: Update for ikev2-ipv6-config draft

On Wednesday 13 February 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi, > > I have posted a new version of the ikev2-ipv6-config draft > (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-eronen-ipsec-ikev2-ipv6-config) > which incorporates some new ideas based on good discussions > in Vancouver (Hemant and Dave, thanks!). > >

Re: Making IPsec *not* mandatory in Node Requirement

James, On Thursday 28 February 2008, James Carlson wrote: > Julien Laganier writes: > > On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Thomas Narten wrote: > > > We'll never get them to rely on IPsec, at least not until its > > > much more widely available/useable. > > &

Re: Making IPsec *not* mandatory in Node Requirement

Thomas, all, On Wednesday 27 February 2008, Thomas Narten wrote: > Tony, > > > For those that have forgotten, the entire reason for mandating > > IPsec is to get away from the 47 flavors of security that are never > > really configured correctly or completely understood. Yes for any > > given situ

Fwd: RFC 5014 on IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection

FYI, --julien --- A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries. RFC 5014 Title: IPv6 Socket API for Source Address Selection Author: E

Re: Neighbor Discovery and PPP links

Hemant Singh wrote: > James Carlson wrote: > > Hemant Singh wrote: > > > going to fix the bug when this peer hasn't responded to the NUD > > > unicast NS? I have already said the source PPP client that issued > > > the unicast NS is 2461bis complaint. > > > > I don't think it should "fix" the probl

Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO

On Friday 06 July 2007 04:25, JINMEI Tatuya / wrote: > At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:49:21 -0400, > > "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have you tested BSD by sending it an RA with no > > PIO and M and O bits set so that BSD initiates > > DHCPv6 ? Once BSD host is online with D

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-05.txt

James, On Monday 12 March 2007 19:08, James Carlson wrote: > Julien Laganier writes: > > It's not the problem of the OS or its ABI > > compatibility if you insist on linking software > > compiled on the new OS with outdated libraries > > supporting the old OS.

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-05.txt

Rémi, On Monday 12 March 2007 18:07, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > Le lundi 12 mars 2007 18:50, Julien Laganier a > écrit : > > Now what your example essentially does is: > > > > - compile an old library on an old system without > > the new API so t

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-05.txt

Overlooked that part of On Monday 12 March 2007 17:08, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > This new version still breaks ABI compatibility, > meaning any implementors would have to rebuild any > software using getaddrinfo against a new library. [...] Sorry, overlooked that part below: > To avoid this

Re: Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-05.txt

nter to an addrinfo structure if it wants to free it :) --julien On Monday 12 March 2007 17:08, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > Le lundi 12 mars 2007 11:31, Julien Laganier a écrit : > > An updated version of the IPv6 address selection > > API draft has been published (see below). Over

Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-05.txt

Folks, An updated version of the IPv6 address selection API draft has been published (see below). Over the years, this draft has been reviewed by many participants to the IPv6 WG, and has been supported by many of them. Their feedback has been incorporated in successive revision of the draft.

Re: multicast DNS without multicast (in IPv6 only)

Hi Pars, On Wednesday 10 January 2007 11:06, Pars Mutaf wrote: > (IPv6 WG CCed sorry all for cross-posting) > > Dear namedroppers, > > I believe that dot-local DNS (also called multicast > DNS) will be even more useful in the future. > However, I suspect that there is a problem. For > example, in

Re: [netlmm] RE: Multilink subnet issues and proxy/relay DAD

multiple keys could be used to generate a CGA, each key being used by one router only. --julien draft-kempf-mobopts-ringsig-ndproxy <http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-kempf-mobopts-ringsig-ndproxy-02.txt> > -Original Message- > From: Julien Laganier > [mailto:[

Re: [netlmm] RE: Multilink subnet issues and proxy/relay DAD

Fred, My follow-up inlined below, On Monday 06 November 2006 14:55, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Jari - see below for follow-up: > > Hi Fred, > > > >> 1. What are the issues wrt proxy/relay DAD that > >> would interfere with its adoption as a standard > >> mechanism? > > > > Almost anything can be

Re: Revised address selection preference API draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-04

On Friday 20 October 2006 14:48, you wrote: > Hello again, Hi, > For consistency with the current getaddrinfo and > setsockopt usage, I think the preference flags ought > to be an "int" rather than an "uin32_t", What should we be consistent with? I don't understand how that would be more

Re: address selection and DHCPv6

Hi Vlad, On Wednesday 25 October 2006 18:22, Vlad Yasevich wrote: > > So, yes, there is a reason to prefer a configured > > address over a stateless autoconf one. Same > > argument applies with DHCPv6 configured addresses. > > [...] > > Also, this preference really depends on the usage > case

Re: Revised address selection preference API draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-04

On Friday 20 October 2006 14:41, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote: > Hello, Hi, > Some random comments: Thanks for those; see my response inlined below: > The proposed API adds a new IPv6-level socket option > (IPV6_ADDRESS_PREFERENCES). IMHO, it ought to > also specify that this can also be us

Revised address selection preference API draft-chakrabarti-ipv6-addrselect-api-04

Folks, I just resubmitted a revised draft on the address selection preference API incorporating comments and suggestions we got from reviewers (thanks!) since -03 went out last year. Until it shows up in the repository, you find it here:

Re: [netlmm] Multilink Subnet Considerations for NETLMM Addressing

On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:55, James Kempf wrote: > Maybe I'm confused, but I don't see what L=0 really means. If > ADDRCONF assigns the prefix to the interface, then the prefix is on > link for at least one node, the node that configured the interface > with the prefix. I suppose one could argu

Re: [netlmm] Multilink Subnet Considerations for NETLMM Addressing

Hi James, Just for clarification. On Thursday 24 August 2006 20:04, James Kempf wrote: > Fred, > > I don't think this quite captures the situation. > > [...] > > Secondly, exactly what is meant by 'L=0' is underspecified by RFC > 2461. I think everyone agrees with 'L=1' means, that the prefix is

Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt

[ Cross-posted to HIP WG and IPv6 WG. ] [ Please reply _only_ to the INT area. ] Folks, draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-01.txt has been updated based on feedback received from IETFers. The HIP base specification currently has a hard dependency on this draft and therefore it would be desirable to hav

Re: [Int-area] Re: KHIs and SHA-256

On Wednesday 16 November 2005 15:14, Francis Dupont wrote: > Please note KHIs have other usages than HIP... Off course! That was just an usefulness example of having identifiers allocated out of the locator space as a transition tool: it makes possible to use at the same time identifiers and loc

Re: [Int-area] Re: KHIs and SHA-256

On Tuesday 15 November 2005 23:42, Erik Nordmark wrote: > Pekka Nikander wrote: (...) > > 2a. Implement KHIs on the top of SHIM6 > >- changes stack but minimally from 1a, perhaps not at all > >- does not change applications > > I don't understand the last point. A KHI couldn't be used in

Re: IPv6 Multi-homing BOF at NANOG 35

On Sunday 16 October 2005 23:25, Erik Nordmark wrote: > > The issue I have with your description is that you assume that the > "mapping layers" are actually of similar complexity, and AFAICT > they are quite different; the shim uses a "re-mapping" layer (which > remaps the ULIDs to alternative loca

Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-00.txt

Hi, We would appreciate very much feedback from members of the IPv6 WG on this internet draft. Thanks in advance. Regards, --julien -- Forwarded Message -- Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-laganier-ipv6-khi-00.txt Date: Saturday 03 September 2005 00:50 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: i