Title: draft-pashby-mboned-mc-scoped-addr-01 is available
There is a new rev of draft-pashby-mboned-mc-scoped-addr available at http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/drafts/draft-pashby-mboned-mc-scoped-addr-01.txt It has been submitted to ietf-drafts but missed the cutoff. I would like to
Title: draft-pashby-magma-simplify-mld-snoop-01 is available
There is a new rev of draft-pashby-magma-simplify-mld-snoop available at http://www.innovationslab.net/~brian/drafts/draft-pashby-magma-simplify-mld-snoop-01.txt It has been submitted to ietf-drafts but missed the cutoff. Any
I agree with the changes too
Ron
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
David Malone
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:33
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: Bob Hinden; IPv6 WG
Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:
draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-13.txt
On
I was confused when I read the draft about the change to the multicast address.
I reread the draft and realized where the confusion arrises in the second
paragraph of section 5 it states:
Append the first 32 bits of that 128-bit hash to the prefix
FF02:0:0:0:0:2:FF::/104.
Should this
Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 1:47
To: Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Cc: Jari Arkko; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Solicit comments on
draft-pashby-ipv6-network-discovery-00.txt
On Mon, 26 Sep 2005, Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35 wrote:
These hosts will still
in. If IND was
mandated (and available in all nodes) it would serve the discovery purpose but
not change the ICMP DoS case.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: Jeff Pickering [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:14
To: Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
There are many networks that devices do not through routers. So asking the
router for their addresses is not sufficient.
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 4:38
To: Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Cc: Jari Arkko; ipv6@ietf.org
Title: Solicit comments on draft-pashby-ipv6-network-discovery-00.txt
This draft was presented in Paris, however there was not enough time to disscuss it there.
There was some discussion on the list regarding using an all hosts multicast for network discovery. This draft does not add that
Title: Solicit comments on draft-pashby-ipv6-detecting-spoofing-00.txt
This draft was presented in Paris, but did not have time for discussion. We would appreciate any comments.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
the issue
without too many false positives.
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 13:02
To: Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Solicit comments on
draft-pashby-ipv6-detecting-spoofing-00.txt
Another set
Brian,
I agree with the suggestion. My understanding is that this is used for on-link
queries (especially the name lookup) which is a link local multicast.
We also need to get comments on the proposal of limiting the multicast id to
0xFF00 - 0x (overlaying the Solicited Node
, August 03, 2005 4:07
To: Mark Smith; Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: FW: Re: about draft-pashby-ipv6-network-discovery-00.txt
Only if they respond to the multicast echo request.
Reality check: by default, host firewalls drop incoming echo requests.
An explicit
Title: FW: Re: about draft-pashby-ipv6-network-discovery-00.txt
Greg, et. al,
You stated:
Regarding draft-pashby-ipv6-network-discovery-00.txt,
this provides a mechanism for devices to be made respond
to queries from another device on the IPv6 network.
This is not an existing
Title: Re: Proposed IPv6 W.G. Agenda for Paris
Bob,
I request the opportunity to present draft-pashby-ipv6-network-discovery-00 and draft-pashby-ipv6-detecting-spoofing-00. I will not be present but Karen O'Donoghue is willing to present it for me. I believe these are important issues and
range is for possible use
of Organization scoped and Site scope.
-Original Message-
From: Elwyn Davies [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 18:56
To: Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp
@ietf.org; Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-12.txt
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:43:45 +0100,
Elwyn Davies [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As I said in my previous posting, I don't think you ought to think
19:48
To: Pashby, Ronald W CTR NSWCDD-B35
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-12.txt
Consider:
- The primary point of RFC3307 is to make sure that you can get a unique
IPv6 multicast address - The Layer 2 non-clash is a bonus.
- The addresses
Title: Comments on draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-12.txt
In the second paragraph of section 5 it reads:
Compute the MD5 hash [11] of the first label of the Subject Name -- the portion beginning with the first one-octet length field and up to, but excluding, any subsequent length field.
18 matches
Mail list logo
