On 12 Sep 2013, at 11:33, wrote:
>
> This information would assist the sending device to better choose its next
> course of action (e.g. ask user to go and kick the device). I may poke
> homenet as well, but I have been in understanding that homenet is focused on
> routing and related problema
On 6 Sep 2013, at 12:13, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> Not sure if it's too late to fix this, but I happened to notice this text in
> draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-11:
>
> "When the information from the DHCP server goes stale, the policy received
> from the DHCP server SHOULD be deprecated."
>
>
On 22 Aug 2013, at 22:58, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 08:19 AM, Mark ZZZ Smith wrote:
>>
>> Going by the title, it seems my comment was missed about not implying
>> that this address generation technique is limited to SLAAC slack
>> scenarios, but could be useful with any address config
On 25 Jul 2013, at 19:03, Don Sturek wrote:
> Hi Ulrich,
>
> Let me say as an implementer of ROLL RPL (and Trickle Multicast) the topic
> of multi-link subnets and the general topic of multicast address scope
> continues to be a major concern. For example, we needed to extend mDNS to
> cover si
On 25 Jul 2013, at 10:39, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:26 PM 7/24/13, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> wrote:
>
>> At Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:19:15 +0200,
>> Ralph Droms wrote:
>>
I have a couple of comments on the draft:
- I think the draft explains the motivation of int
On 22 Jul 2013, at 10:01, Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab)
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> A new draft draft-lepape-6man-prefix-metadata-00 describing
> a method for applications to learn and influence source address selection by
> associating
> IPv6 prefixes with meta-data when configured by
> the network i
On 2 Jun 2013, at 21:51, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:51 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 1:22 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
{ISP Connection} -> Router -> multiple segments each of which contains one
or
On 2 Jun 2013, at 17:31, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> Well, this is why the homenet arch says that prefix delegation should be
>> efficient. Using DHCP-PD forces a structure to the delegations, and thus
>> potential inefficiency. Th
On 2 Jun 2013, at 17:10, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> You are assuming that all of the subordinate routers will act as DHCP relays
>> rather than doing PD.
>> That is certainly one possible solution, but, not necessarily ideal in all
>> cases.
>> In cas
On 1 Jun 2013, at 13:42, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2013, at 5:58 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
>> On May 31, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>> What solutions exist today that provide for the home of the future where
>>> there are, in fact, multiple levels of routers many of which are
On 31 May 2013, at 08:37, Sheng Jiang wrote:
>
> Actually, my motivation is NOT to sell this mechanism to anyone. My
> observation is some network operators, both ISPs and enterprise network
> operator, has such address plan, or already in use. We, as IETF, cannot stop
> them. So, we should do
On 30 May 2013, at 08:00, Sheng Jiang wrote:
>>
>> I agree. That said, an ISP, enterprise or group of organisations can follow
>> whatever semantics they wish within their own borders. Just don't expect
>> anyone else to follow or use those semantics. What Sheng is proposing is
>> clearly stated
On 30 May 2013, at 00:02, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Personally, I think this is an inherently bad idea.
>
> IP addresses need less overloading of semantics, not more.
>
> We already use IP addresses for two conflicting purposes… Topology locator
> and End System Identifier.
>
> This overloading i
On 28 May 2013, at 22:07, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
> On May 26, 2013, at 9:01 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
>> How about including something along these lines (*) in an Appendix?
>>
>> (*) Discussion of possible attacks, and what stable privacy addresses do
>> about them (analyzing this for every p
On 24 May 2013, at 21:50, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
> On 25/05/2013 02:43, Tim Chown wrote:
>
>> A couple of additional comments.
>>
>> One is that from time to time there may be security issues raised with
>> certain headers, e.g. RH0. These may obviously be
On 29 May 2013, at 00:57, Michael Sweet wrote:
> Brian,
>
> On 2013-05-28, at 4:38 PM, Brian E Carpenter
> wrote:
>> I'm increasingly baffled by the use case. If the host is
>> in a context where it can reach a server *and* has more than
>> one interface (such that a ZoneID is needed at all),
Comments in-line...
On 24 May 2013, at 16:17, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
>
> I just wonder why, when you can use a monitoring system to log all your
> events (MAC + IP) when you are inside a corporate network, you see this as a
> big issue. You can also rotate your logs so that a large amount of stor
On 24 May 2013, at 13:40, John Leslie wrote:
> Ray Hunter wrote:
>>
>> I would also like to see some text on whether it is possible/desirable
>> for a middleware box to strip unknown headers, or even some known
>> headers, rather than making a binary decision to drop or transmit the
>> entire p
Hi,
In-line...
On 24 May 2013, at 02:00, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Tim,
>
> Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line...
>
> On 05/22/2013 10:19 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>>
>> Overall, I think this is good work and should be progressed.
>
On 24 May 2013, at 10:31, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 03:34 AM, Dave Thaler wrote:
>>> I attend an IETF meeting, and learn the IID of your laptop. Then I can
>>> actively
>>> probe your node regarding "Is David at the office?" "Is David at home?",
>>> etc simply because your IID is
On 23 May 2013, at 18:36, Ray Hunter wrote:
>
> In corporate environments it is very important that cross-correlation of
> log events can occur to support various operational processes (also over
> longer periods of time and for examining historical records). IPv4 did
> not randomly rotate end n
Hi,
Can you clarify, succinctly, what your proposal adds that you cannot achieve by
a combination of
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses/ and
RFC4941?
It seems a key point is that 4941 "only" says SHOULD for the IID regeneration
when the prefix changes. Y
Hi Fernando,
I've read -07 and have some comments. Apologies if they are duplicates of
previous comments.
Overall, I think this is good work and should be progressed.
First, some general comments:
You may wish to be clearer earlier in the document (abstract and/or
introduction) that your meth
On 21 May 2013, at 03:00, Fernando Gont wrote:
>
> Additionally, I'd like to better understand the stability properties of
> UUIDs (and add some text about it right after the text that you have
> suggested). My assumption is that one would have UUIDs for network
> interfaces that would, at least
On 5 Apr 2013, at 16:55, Alexandru Petrescu
wrote:
> I wonder whether homenet people consider that the prefix to be delivered
> to a homenet could be longer than /64 (i.e. /65 or /66).
That would be considered a failure mode.
See 3.4.1 of the current homenet arch text (a new version of which i
On 29 Apr 2013, at 20:39, Ray Hunter wrote:
> Christian Huitema wrote:
>>> The "problem" here is that don't have all the names/IDs we'd like. For
>>> example, using the MAC address as the Interface_ID would do for this
>>> purpose... but the the IPv6 address is tied to the MAC address, and woul
On 1 Feb 2013, at 15:47, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
>
> 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.
You can also of course just use tools that harvest data from
network/switch/router devices, and
On 12 Dec 2012, at 15:37, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 04:04:14PM -0600, Brian Hamacher wrote:
>> I am looking for a good way to track my users MAC Addresses. I have a
>> test DHCPv6 server up and running ISC 4.1.1-P1. When I look through my
>> DHCP logs as well as my leases f
On 12 Dec 2012, at 18:48, Ole Trøan wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> I am a little bit confused what we are talking about.
>> Our draft is necessary when there is no SLAAC.
>>
>> Could you elaborate your viewpoints?
>
> the PIO option in RA has several functions.
>
> 1) with the A-flag on, it is used by SLA
On 20 Nov 2012, at 17:24, Stig Venaas wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 6:57 PM, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
>> Hi, all
>>
>> This is not talking about a new idea. The " Parameterized IP-Specific
>> configuration" comes from the 6renum WG item, see
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6renum-gap-analysis-0
Hi,
I forgot to ask for a 5 min slot for this in Atlanta.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-6man-tokenised-ipv6-identifiers-02
The draft describes a way to simplify (a little!) server renumbering in SLAAC
networks. Rather than manually configuring a 128-bit address on servers, you
config
On 30 Oct 2012, at 07:58, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 29/10/2012 18:46, Ole Trøan wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> there is a suggestion by our AD to move the 6man session from Monday morning
>> to Tuesday morning.
>> this is to allow Apps people to participate in the discussion on the URI
>> draft.
>>
On 29 Oct 2012, at 18:46, Ole Trøan wrote:
> All,
>
> there is a suggestion by our AD to move the 6man session from Monday morning
> to Tuesday morning.
> this is to allow Apps people to participate in the discussion on the URI
> draft.
>
> If anyone has strong objections to moving the sessio
On 22 Oct 2012, at 01:04, Mark Smith wrote:
> Hi Karl,
>
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: Karl Auer
>> To: IETF IPv6
>> Cc:
>> Sent: Thursday, 18 October 2012 11:30 PM
>> Subject: Win7 - no managed flag, DHCP address released?!?
>>
>> My apologies if this is not the right list for
On 22 Oct 2012, at 10:00, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
>
> 2012/10/17 Ray Hunter :
>>
>> It's really a question of if we need to further clarify what is meant by
>> "default policy" in Section 4.2 of draft-ietf-6man-addr-select-opt-06.
>>
>> Is it the manually configured node-specific default, or
On 22 Oct 2012, at 10:08, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> Brian,
>
> 2012/10/16 Brian E Carpenter :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I support this draft but have a couple of comments.
>>
>>> A: Automatic Row Addition flag. This flag toggles the Automatic
>>>Row Addition flag at client hosts, which is de
On 20 Apr 2012, at 07:50, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Bob,
>
> On 04/18/2012 05:55 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is an area I would like to know more about, and it would be good
>> to quantify the problem.
>
> I've just posted this drafty I-D, which hopefully shed some light on the
> sub
On 14 Apr 2012, at 15:09, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 04/14/2012 12:30 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> I while ago I put this one forward, which is an alternative to
>> Fernando's suggestion that you have to set the whole address:
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html
On 14 Apr 2012, at 01:36, Karl Auer wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-04-13 at 15:29 +0200, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Additionally, I'd argue that in order to have such thing, then
>> 1) You'd need to manually configure your address each time you move from
>> one network to another (as with manual configuratio
On 13 Apr 2012, at 08:14, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2012-04-12 22:28, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> This is a consensus call on adopting:
>>
>>Title : A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Addresses with
>>IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)
I would like to see B; which would reflect common practice in the -bis RFC, but
allow the default to be changed.
Nothing precludes a host using privacy addresses also having a static/DNS
registered address it's reachable by, but as Tassos says that's not the topic
for the vote.
Tim
On 27 Mar
On 20 Mar 2012, at 21:25, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2012-03-20 21:51, Anders Brandt wrote:
>>
>> It is a surprise to me that ULA addresses are not by default routable within
>> the site.
>> I can easily imagine a number of LLN border routers which autonomously
>> allocate
>> different ULA
On 13 Feb 2012, at 22:01, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Yet another problem in draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise...
>
> Section 2.4 (Private IPv4 address scope):
> [...]
>> The algorithm currently specified in RFC 3484 is based on the
>> assumption that a source address with a small scope cannot reach a
>
Comment in-line...
On 14 Feb 2012, at 17:02, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> Dave,
>
> another point below.
>
> On 2012/02/14, at 8:55, Dave Thaler wrote:
>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Dave Thaler
>>> Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 2:01 PM
>>> To: Dave Thaler; 'Chris Grundemann'; 'Bri
Adopt.
On 8 Feb 2012, at 20:07, Kerry Lynn wrote:
> Aye, -K-
>
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Brian Haberman
> wrote:
>> All,
>> This is a consensus call on adopting:
>>
>> Title : Representing IPv6 Zone Identifiers in
>> Uniform Resource Identifiers
>> Auth
Well, there are two questions here.
One is whether the WG believes the update as described in
draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05 is correct and complete. I have not seen
(yet) any significant technical concerns raised. The last of those were
discussed and (we believe) resolved in Quebec. Are
Agree.
On 11 Nov 2011, at 04:13, Shane Amante wrote:
>
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> I support this change.
>
> +1.
>
> -shane
>
>
>
>> Regards
>> Brian Carpenter
>>
>> On 2011-11-11 06:00, Bob Hinden wrote:
>>> This email starts a one week 6MAN Working Group
On 10 Aug 2011, at 14:54, Brian Haberman wrote:
> On 8/9/11 5:51 PM, Kerry Lynn wrote:
>> RFC 3306 states:
>>
>>
>> "The scope of the unicast-prefix based multicast address MUST NOT
>> exceed the scope of the unicast prefix embedded in the multicast
>> address."
>>
>>
>> I'd just like to veri
Hi guys,
I think we're almost ready to WGLC the 3484-bis draft, as per
draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-04.
We had 3 issues in Quebec:
1) Inclusion of deprecated prefixes. It seemed the agreement in the room was
to include compatibles, site-locals and 6bone prefixes in the policy table. If
th
The second issue is surrounding IPv6 privacy addresses (RFC4941).
Section 3.1 of RFC4941 states:
"this document assumes that when a node initiates outgoing
communication, temporary addresses can be given preference over
public addresses when the device is configured to do so.
[ADDR_SELE
The third issue is I think one that Mark Smith raised, and there was some
discussion without a conclusion.
Do we add a rule between 3 and 4 saying 'Prefer greatest preferred lifetime',
i.e. If the addresses SA and SB both have non-zero value preferred lifetimes
(are "non-deprecated"), prefer t
Hi,
The authors of rfc3484-bis would like to solicit feedback on three open issues,
to help shape a (hopefully) final update before the cut-off on 11th July.
The first issue is which deprecated prefixes to include in the new default
policy table. As of -03, the 3ffe::/16 prefix has been remove
On 23 Jun 2011, at 08:03, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> Securing L2 networks is something not generally done today in enterprise and
> surprisingly often in SP environments as well. This can be seen by all the
> problems reported by Windows ICS v6 RA:s being sent out and causing problems
> to oth
On 17 Jun 2011, at 16:25, Brian Haberman wrote:
> On 6/17/11 11:12 AM, Rui Paulo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Jun 10, 2011, at 3:16 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>> directories. This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Main
On 15 Jun 2011, at 01:42, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>
>> RFC5157 IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning
>
> Personally, I think that RFC has been overtaken by events. Network scans have
> been reported in the wild.
I just re-read the abstract a
On 14 Jun 2011, at 02:23, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> Are there plans to introduce dhcpv6-guard?
>
> This is something that vendors should answer. As long as there are
> implementations that may try DHCPv6 even if no RA is received, DHCPv6
> should be implemented/deployed along RA-Guard, or else atta
On 31 May 2011, at 03:38, Fred Baker wrote:
>
> I would expect, however, that the use of DHCP is something configured on the
> system in question, just like it is in IPv4. Not that there is an
> auto-configure option in IPv4 - the other alternative is manual
> configuration, and most systems c
On 24 May 2011, at 00:48, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Manfredi, Albert E
> wrote:
>> Mark Smith wrote:
>
>> Mark, as I suggested previously, DHCP is useful in cases where you need the
>> IP addresses of hosts in a network to be predictable. I have no idea why
On 13 May 2011, at 14:45, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>
>> New:
>>
>> DHCPv6 can be used to obtain and
>> configure addresses. In general, a network may provide for the
>> configuration of addresses through Router Advertisements,
>> DHCPv6 or both. Some operators have indicated t
On 7 Apr 2011, at 21:07, Richard Hartmann wrote:
>
> Anyway, after a long time of gathering feedback, we have boiled down
> the options to hextet and quibble. quibble remains in there mostly for
> historic reasons and to gather additional feedback. I do not think
> suggesting two separate terms i
Hi,
Just a heads-up or reminder that there is a Site Renumbering (renum) BoF being
held today (Thursday) at 15:20 in Congress Hall II.
The description and agenda are listed here:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/80/agenda/renum.txt
Remote participation information (audio, Jabber, etc) is listed
On 13 Nov 2010, at 22:24, Mark Smith wrote:
>
> RFC3484, and the draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-01 update, don't seem to
> specify that preferred lifetime values should be used as a tie-breaker
> with all other things are equal. The only related text I can see in
> RFC3484 is -
>
> 'Rule 3: Avo
On 9 Sep 2010, at 06:49, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>
> In real life, ISPs consider DSCP as one thing they have the right to change
> (along with TTL) in transit. I can imagine the flow label being considered
> the same thing regardless of what the standard says.
The interesting thing in the ac
t the STB in my example
> can choose the expected prefix/address via the Policy Table?
> What is in the Policy Table and how to configure it? Manually (maybe not
> acceptable for SLAAC case) or automatically?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best regards,
> Fortune
>
>
> -Origin
On 8 Jun 2010, at 09:44, Fortune HUANG wrote:
>
> I don't have any preference to use RA over DHCPv6, but I would be grateful
> if you could tell me the guidance to decide whether to deploy SLAAC or
> DHCPv6.
> Obviously, SLAAC can not work as expected in the scenario in my example. So
> this see
Or temporary use of multiple prefixes for renumbering (rfc4192).
Some rogue RA deprecation tools might also use this (eg. rafixd/ramond).
I am not aware of ULAs being used commonly (read: not aware of use
in any campus environment as yet).
tim
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:37:16AM -0400, Christoph
I support adopting this draft.
--
Tim
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
etf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of
Tim Chown
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 12:24 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: john.lough...@nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org; Brian E Carpenter
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Issue 14 - Privacy Extensions
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 02:06:45PM -0400, Thomas Nar
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 02:06:45PM -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
>
> That said, I generally like Brian's proposed text:
I agree.
> >In such situations, RFC4941 SHOULD be implemented. In other cases,
> >RFC4941 provides limited or no benefit.
>
> One possible tweak on the last sentence, h
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 07:54:13AM +0200, john.lough...@nokia.com wrote:
> Additionally, in an IPv6-world, my hope is that things will be a bit more
> interesting in terms of the roles of IPv6 nodes. As you might know, we have
> made a port of the Apache web server to mobile phones, and have that
Hi,
I have compiled feedback into a revised draft available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-addr-select-considerations-03
These address comments on list, from Thomas and Dave, and include
reference to new drafts. I believe the 6man chairs indicated
this could be a WG item, though I
A handful of comments.
Perhaps Section 12 of any -04 version can update it's 'open issue'
list to reflect what's below and anything else on the table? And
are we content that the other things listed currently in section 12
have been answered?
Can we say anything stronger for MLDv2 support? It
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 07:28:31AM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:40:20PM +0530, Vijayrajan ranganathan wrote:
> > Is there a standard solution for this kind of problem?
>
> On some OSes it is possible to control the host part of the
> autoconfigured address by manually co
Hi,
The 6man agenda is published at:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/6man.html
Please note the current version of the address selection draft is -02,
updated from -01, which can be found at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-addr-select-considerations-02
Thanks,
--
Tim
Hi,
We'll need a slot for the Address Selection Design Team update, maybe
20 mins or so I'd guess. Discussions have resumed on the team list
so a new draft will probably be out soon capturing that and feedback
from IETF73.
Tim
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 01:23:40PM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
> A
On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 04:36:57PM +0200, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> > For what it's worth,
> >
> > Whenever statelessly auto-configuring an IPv6 address on Ethernet the
> > 10th and 11th bytes are always 'fffe', hardcoded. These are lost bits.
>
> The world has more devi
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 02:37:33PM -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> >>
> >>I and I suspect others took it as a serious question. Since you
> >>didn't answer, I ignored your poll.
> >>
> >I didn't answer *yet* as of then, but have answered it now.
> >
> >Does this mean you'll answer the poll now?
> >
>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2007 at 03:26:54PM +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
>
> > Also, could the cahirs confirm the final status of the existing eight WG
> > drafts as listed at:
> > http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-charter.html
> >
> > Four of these aren't mentioned in the revised charter; are they
> > ex
This looks OK to me.
One warm ipv6 wg topic at present that may (or may not) need adding is
the resurgence of the issues discussed in Thomas Narten's 3177bis draft
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02)
which I think has expired?
Or is this being left solely as an R
ems Administration Conference (LISA96)
>* Procedures for Renumbering an IPv6 Network Without a Flag Day,
> Baker, Lear, Droms, RFC 4192, September, 2005.
>
> I would also add that Tim Chown has done an extensive amount of work in
> this space.
Well, it was the 6NET team, an
I also tried to subscribe via the web page, but have received no
acknowledgement yet.
We do have IPv6 MX's; perhaps the list owner can check the status.
Tim
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 06:12:39PM +0900, Ruri Hiromi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I tried to subscribe SAVA mailing list but in vain, because of
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 03:33:59PM +0200, Markku Savela wrote:
>
> I was countered that these MLD's were needed for some "intelligent"
> bridges to get neighbor discovery work. My view was that such layer 2
> sniffing devices should not generate requirements to IP layer, and all
> information for
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 04:57:58PM -0400, James Carlson wrote:
> Bernie Volz (volz) writes:
> > I would think that how an address is assigned shouldn't enter into this.
> > I can't see that it matters.
>
> It matters only in that different assignment mechanisms have different
> inherent stabilitie
Indeed. A changing privacy address can be assigned by DHCP for example.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 03:00:29PM -0400, Durand, Alain wrote:
> The question is not to get an absolutely stable address,
> but to make sure that in case multiple addresses are defined,
> the one with the highest likelyhood
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 07:37:38PM +, Kayumba .H Thierry wrote:
>
>hi to all
>
>how to test the features and the perfomance of IPv6 ?
Have a look at: http://www.ipv6ready.org/, or the ETSI IPv6 Plugfests,
next one here: http://www.v6summit.com/Plugtests/framework.htm
--
Tim/::1
On Tue, Mar 21, 2006 at 01:36:18PM -0600, Bob Hinden wrote:
>M :
>1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag. When set, it
> indicates
>that addresses are available via Dynamic Host Configuration
> Protocol
>[DHCPv6], including addresses that were not configured vi
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 03:05:12AM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> António Amaral wrote:
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Can you please tell me if there is an IETF Group for IPv4 IPv6 multicast
> > transition?
>
> In short: there is a IPv4 to IPv6 multicast gateway, as created by Stig
> Venaas, available on
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 06:20:15PM -0500, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: David Malone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 2:57 PM
>
> > Internet Explorer will automatically use IPv6 on windows when
> > accessing IPv6 web sites on machi
It depends where you are.
Assuming North America soemthing like the freenet6 service would be
available, see www.freenet6.org.
Many ISPs offer brokers for their users, e.g. we support one here for
the UK academic network users. This is useful for sites that have
yet to deploy IPv6 natively or
Hi Suraj,
May I ask if you are implementing this, or are you looking from a theoretical
perspective?
Tim
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 08:24:55AM +0100, Elwyn Davies wrote:
>
>
> Suraj wrote:
>
> >Hi All,
> >
> >RFC 2894 ' Router Renumbering for IPv6'describes the Renumbering of
> >Prefixes using R
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:28:44AM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a very good question, more details can be found in this draft
> that is currently in RFC Ed. queue:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dnsop-ipv6-dns-configurat
> ion-06.txt
A good summary email.
I
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:06:40AM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > > Seems to me the WG ought to work through these questions:
> > >
> > &
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:06:40AM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Seems to me the WG ought to work through these questions:
>
> 1. Is RFC 3484 adequate to solve the address selection problem?
>
> My guess is "no", because of its references to site-local addresses and
> other deficiencies discussed i
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:24:51PM +1000, Greg Daley wrote:
>
> I'm not sure anyone is doing it, but renumbering is applicable
> there as a means of providing information about which prefixes
> are valid.
We went through a pretty full enterprise renumbering procedure, but were
able to control add
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 05:43:27AM -0400, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> >I choose not to try to get to the mic, but on the debated requirement
> >point
> >3; why is there a belief that the DHCP relay information is correctly
> >configured if the simpler set of 2 bits is improperly configur
Hi,
I raised this question today but we were short of time.
My concern is that in an enterprise deployment, I might want to avoid the
complexity of privacy addresses (from the management perspective).
The context today was that in the proposal to distribute address selection
policy (RFC3484) by
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 09:49:17AM -0700, Erik Nordmark wrote:
>
> That is the case if a remote node can do the discovery operation. But if
> the discovery operation is limited to nodes on the link, then we don't
> have the "remote" concern.
>
> I think that might be a reasonable middle ground.
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 01:56:11AM +1000, Greg Daley wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was chatting with Keith Moore, and think that it may
> help to provide guidance (a BCP) on which components
> are stable and reliable for IPv6 deployment.
>
> Perhaps it could be seen as a wrap-up for the IPv6 WG.
I think an
On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 07:22:09PM +0900, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
>
> Additionally,
> at v6ops session yesterday, 6net people showed us another
> possible usage of address selection policy table. It's renumbering.
> By pouring address selection policy into each end hosts,
> you can easily configu
On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 05:39:37PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 27-jul-2005, at 16:27, JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
>
> >>The flags are just hints, the host can always ignore
> >>them. If it is inappropriate to try to use DHCP when flags
> >>are zero, let it be so. Similarly if t
1 - 100 of 200 matches
Mail list logo
