This is implemented in Windows Vista onwards.
Simha
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Fernando Gont
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:01 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: v6...@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Implementation of the RA Route Informat
the admin has the option to prevent routing
through R3/R4 anyway.
Simha
-Original Message-
From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:erik.nordm...@sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 5:25 AM
To: Narasimhan Venkataramaiah
Cc: Templin, Fred L; IPv6 Maintenance WG
Subject: Re: Question on
packets for P1::/48 on
the routers R3 and R4 if they truly want all packets destined to P1::/48 to go
over R1 or R2.
Simha
-Original Message-
From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com]
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 9:09 AM
To: Erik Nordmark; Narasimhan Venkatar
This behavior is implemented in Vista and Windows 7.
Can you explain the concern about unpredictability more? The algorithm reacts
to the changes in the network - hence there is bound to be unpredictability on
the time line of when the packets start getting routed to a different next hop
- but
Is the authoritative router supposed to publish the stub router's more specific
routes (learnt from the route info options in the stub router's RA) in its
routing protocol? If so the security issues with this are much severe than the
link local security issues of RFC 4861. If not - then the stub
"There is a similar API in Winsock2 that tries multiple destination
addresses,
but not every pair of destination and source address."
In windows 7 you get every pair possible with some restrictions and the
ordering is based on improving the chances of success of successful connection
completio
