On Jul 4, 2011, at 3:16 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 22:12 +0930, Mark Smith wrote:
>> If every router supports the subnet anycast address, because it is a
>> mandated requirement, you can develop and deploy something that relies
>> on it. If the availability is limited, you end u
On Jul 4, 2011, at 1:54 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 13:30 +0200, Mark Townsley wrote:
>> 6rd makes use of the v6 subnet router anycast
>> [...]
>> Also, at the last IETF meeting the DHC WG took on an effort to
>> describe the use of subnet route
6rd makes use of the v6 subnet router anycast, see section 5 of RFC5969. In
short, this allows a CE to construct a ping with a well-known destination that
will be returned by one of the BRs. Operators like this because it allows them
to fairly easily get a good indication of which BR a given
Erik Kline and I wrote up an experience we had with NUD and a broken IPv6
firewall on my home network.
http://sites.google.com/site/ipv6center/icmpv6-is-non-optional
In short, NUD thought that a host which was in the neighbor cache really wasn't
available (due to incorrect FW blocking at the h
On Mar 11, 2011, at 3:32 AM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> I'm saying the reasons people are tempted to disable RFC4941 are misplaced.
>
> +1
>
> Consider that if I want privacy and you won't let me use RFC4941, I might
> just make up a new MAC address each time I connect.
>
> Consider also t
On Mar 10, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Paul Chilton
>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:18 AM
>> To: james woodyatt
>> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
>> Subject: RE: draft-gont-6man-managing-priv
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 4/2/10 5:16 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> As every successful IPv6 user on Windows XP knows, the hack
> would break all Windows XP IPv6 usage (since it can't resolve
> DNS over IPv6 at all).
Effectively all MACs as well, as the only way to get DNS
On 3/26/10 6:33 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
[added V6OPS list]
On Mar 26, 2010, at 08:11, Ole Troan wrote:
Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
carnage. Anyway, the current CPE router
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Mark Townsley
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:28 AM
To: Margaret Wasserman
Cc: Brian Haberman; Internet Area; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Dan
Wing; 'IPv6 Operations'; ipv6@ietf.org; Behave WG
Subject: Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mailing list
We are discussing the situation wit
> etc.)?
>
> I will not be able to travel to Montreal, but would like to attend all
> or part of the meeting remotely, if possible.
>
> Thanks,
> Margaret
>
> On Sep 15, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:
>
>>
>> We have setup an email list for d
Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Mark Townsley wrote:
>
>> We have setup an email list for discussion leading up to the interim
>> v4v6 coexistence meeting on October 1-2, 2008 in Montréal, Canada. If
>> you are registered to attend the meeting, you should already be on the list
We have setup an email list for discussion leading up to the interim
v4v6 coexistence meeting on October 1-2, 2008 in Montréal, Canada. If
you are registered to attend the meeting, you should already be on the list.
The list is open, please subscribe and begin using it for all interim
meeting
Apologies for cross-posting, please reply only to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
All,
Recent discussions in the IETF indicate that the IPv4 and IPv6
co-existence solutions we have available will not be sufficient for all
deployment scenarios which we expect to be necessary in the face of
pressures due to upc
Sorry, answered too soon... I see the proto questionairre now. It
doesn't indicate a pppext review, I think it would be a good idea to
have one.
Thanks,
- Mark
Brian Haberman wrote:
Margaret & Mark,
On behalf of the IPv6 WG, the chairs request the advancement of:
Title:
May we have a proto questionairre?
Did you LC this or get a review from in pppext as well?
Thanks,
- Mark
Brian Haberman wrote:
Margaret & Mark,
On behalf of the IPv6 WG, the chairs request the advancement of:
Title: IP Version 6 over PPP
Author(s): S. Varada, et a
15 matches
Mail list logo
