,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Maglione Roberta roberta.magli...@telecomitalia.it
Date: Friday, February 1, 2013 3:26 AM
To: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org ipv6@ietf.org, Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org,
Brian Hamacher bhamac...@westianet.com
Subject: RE: MAC Address Tracking
Hi Chuck,
Yah, but draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt is for DHCPv6
clients, as you rightly pointed out, and not for SLAAC/static hosts.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu
Date: Friday, February 1, 2013 10:42 AM
To: Rajiv Asati raj
I agree, Ted.
-Original Message-
From: Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com
Date: Friday, February 1, 2013 10:49 AM
To: Chuck Anderson c...@wpi.edu
Cc: Rajiv Asati raj...@cisco.com, dh...@ietf.org dh...@ietf.org,
Brian Hamacher bhamac...@westianet.com, Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org,
ipv6
There is a better way out to track the IPv6 addresses used by the hosts
(via SLAAC or static) -
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asati-dhc-ipv6-autoconfig-address-tracking
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Philipp Kern pk...@debian.org
Organization: The Debian Project
Indeed, and I see a sheer wastage in blocking the entire /64 whose one /127 is
used on p2p links.
There are many deployments that already assign bunch of /64 (or lower) prefixes
per hierarchy and encode bunch of useful info in 72-96 and then assign
thousands of /127s out of each /96 (or
Support
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On Jun 13, 2012, at 7:08 AM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
i have slogged through it and support publication as ps
randy
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
+1 for option 3 with hyphen.
I like to be able to read the URI without having to put my glasses on.
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On May 4, 2012, at 3:50 AM, t.petch ie...@btconnect.com wrote:
Brian
To me, Option 3 is the clear, right way to go.
Percent escaping is the purist
Andres,
Thanks for writing up this use-case. Quick Q - What global ID would get
used in the ULA (assuming GUA is not known yet)?
In a homenet case, why cannot the default ULA policy be boiled down to
Discard
ULA packets trying to pass the CER?
That would be reasonable. Perhaps, just deny
Hi Lorenzo,
Sorry about the delayed response (and thanks to Hemant for pointing this
out). Pls see inline,
A couple of points that the draft doesn't explain:
- Why can't the node simply retry DAD without the nonce option?
The node could simply do so, however, it wouldn't be able to
