Dear all,
I have read draft-gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier-03 and believe the security
implications discussed and the suggestions for updating the two RFCs are
essential for security considerations, and the operational mitigations proposed
in the document provide good choices for design. I suppo
Support.
On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:57 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote:
> All,
>
> At the Orlando meeting this document was discussed, and there was consensus
> in the room to
> adopt this as a working group document.
>
> This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on confirming the
> consensus
Support.
On Mar 21, 2013, at 6:01 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote:
> All,
>
> At the Orlando meeting this document was discussed, and there was consensus
> in the room to
> adopt this as a working group document.
>
> This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on confirming the
> consensus
Support.
On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:54 AM, "Ole Troan" wrote:
> All,
>
> At the Orlando meeting this document was discussed, and there was consensus
> in the room to
> adopt this as a working group document.
>
> This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on confirming the
> consensus
Dear all,
The IPv4 predictable Identification issue is being well discussed and
emphasized. This work forces on the IPv6 fragment header predictable
identification issue and tries to protect such vulnerable implementations from
being suffered from DoS attack, by providing several possible and pr
x27;t see the need to use a different name
> to refer to the newly defined flag bits.
>
> Please let me know if this answers to your concern about the name.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>> -Message d'origine-
>> De : Tina TSOU [mailto:tina.tsou.zout...@hu
Dear Med and Stig,
I technically support this draft.
The newly defined flgs field has the same field name in old Addressing
Architecture. I would suggest renaming newly defined flgs field.
Thank you,
Tina
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org]
t; Bob
>
> On Sep 14, 2012, at 1:50 AM, Tina TSOU wrote:
>
>> Hi Erik and Igor,
>>
>> The draft is well explained in regards to the case when there is no
>> alternative default router in the lest of default routers.
>>
>> I wanted some clarification
Tina
> -Original Message-
> From: mboned-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mboned-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Brian Haberman
> Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2012 11:03 AM
> To: Lee, Yiu
> Cc: 6...@ietf.org; apps-disc...@ietf.org application-layer protocols;
> draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-addres
Sent from my iPad
On May 9, 2012, at 11:54 AM, "Carsten Bormann" wrote:
> Hi Med,
>
> thanks for looking into my review. Let me take this opportunity to reiterate
> that, while I wrote this review for the Applications Area Directorate, it is
> not intended to bear more weight than any othe
Sent from my iPhone
On May 7, 2012, at 9:57 AM, "Christian Huitema" wrote:
>>> Link-Local Unicast Addresses 1110 10 1/1024
>>> Site-Local Unicast Addresses 1110 11 1/1024
>> ...
>> So they define the /10 as the link local *prefix*, within which any
>> *addresse
This function results in addresses that:
1. R stable within the same subnet
2. Have different Interface-IDs when moving across networks
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 15, 2012, at 7:30 AM, "Fernando Gont"
mailto:fg...@si6networks.com>> wrote:
Hi, Fred,
On 04/15/2012 05:54 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
That
> For IPv6 one could perhaps use RAs?
Tina
> -Original Message-
> From: Stig Venaas [mailto:s...@venaas.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 11:02 AM
> To: Tina TSOU
> Cc: p...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [pim] Comment on draft-lts-pim-hello-mtu?
>
> On 4/5/20
B for me.
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 27, 2012, at 10:44 AM, "Simon Perreault"
wrote:
> Brian Haberman wrote, on 03/27/2012 09:33 AM:
>> A. Prefer public addresses over privacy addresses
>>
>> B. Prefer privacy addresses over public addresses
>
> I prefer B.
>
> I don't buy the "HTTP cookies a
For your comment.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-6man-hbh-header-update/
> -Original Message-
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 8:45 PM
> To: Tina TSOU
> Cc: Sreenatha setty b
> Subject: New Ve
+1
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 25, 2012, at 6:14 AM, "RJ Atkinson" wrote:
>
> I support adopting this as a WG document.
>
> Ran
>
>
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 5, 2012, at 2:45 AM, "Florian Weimer" wrote:
> * Fernando Gont:
>
>> In that case, you're not required to split your packets into fragments
>> smaller or equal to 1280 bytes, but *are* required to react by including
>> a Fragment Header in subsequent packets.
>
> And
Ghanashyam,
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-multrans-addr-acquisition/
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-multrans-af1-specification/
Running code exists.
Hope it helps.
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6
Support
Tina
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Victor
Kuarsingh
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:36 PM
To: Randy Bush
Cc: 6man Chairs; Brian Haberman; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-3627-historic-00
Brian,
I'm with you. I don't use A6 record in any case.
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:06 PM
To: 6m
Hi,
RFC 4775 is the process to follow.
We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred
Baker
Sent: Saturday, June 04
Hi Bert,
Comments in line.
We keep our promises with one another - no matter what!
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Manfredi, Albert E
Sent: Thursday, March 03
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 10:57 AM
To: Tina Tsou
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-krishnan-6man-header-reserved-bits-00
Best Regards,
Tina TSOU
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Suresh Krishnan
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Rémi Després
Cc: 6man 6man; George, Wes E IV [NTK
＋1
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com
On Oct 11, 2010, at 7:33 AM, brad dreisbach wrote:
support
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Brian Haberman
Sent: zaterdag 9 oktober 2010 18:39
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Call for
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com
On Sep 10, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote:
PPP is not used here. There are numerous different deployment
models, PPP
is an expensive one that should be avoided unless there is serious
use for
it.
While it is true that PPP is not used he
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 28, 2010, at 10:55 PM, George, Wes E IV [NTK] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Tina TSOU
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:57 AM
To: Aleksi Suhonen
Cc: ipv6
Comments in line.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 28, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
Hi,
On 07/28/10 13:24, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe that It's more acceptable for the major
Bob,
I understood. But this is one of the best compromises so far.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 28, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Tina,
On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I be
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe that It's more acceptable for the majority of the different
camps.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
IETF IPv6 working group maili
I support adopting this.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 27, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Brian Haberman
As noted in today's session of 6MAN, the chairs are soliciting
input on adopting:
Title : Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484 Revi
+1
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Winter"
To:
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 5:35 AM
Subject: Re: Consensus call for adoption of draft-hui-6man-rpl-option
anddraft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header
+ 1
On 06/16/2010 11:33 AM, Philip L
Hello,
As a member of the Operations Directorate you are being asked to review
the following IESG work item for it's operational impact.
IETF Last Call:
The file can be obtained via
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-09.txt
IESG discussion can be tracked via
https:
Hi Fred,
If we select the approach 2 in draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03, the
issue we talked below (either restoral or MPLS) would be solved.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Baker"
To: "Tina TSOU"
Cc
Brian,
Agreed.
Let's wait and see what the choice the WG will make.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter"
To: "Tina TSOU"
Cc: "Shane Amante" ; "6man"
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2
I support approach 2.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
- Original Message -
From: "Brian E Carpenter"
To: "6man"
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 9:10 AM
Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
Hi,
This is revised again according to discussi
Hi,
Comments in line.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
- Original Message -
From: Shane Amante
To: Rémi Després
Cc: 6man ; Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:30 AM
Subject: Re: DRAFT: Request for guidance about the flow label
Remi,
I think we may be
No answer from anywhere, even the State of Confusion...
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
- Original Message -
From: Tina TSOU
To: ipv6@ietf.org ; v6...@ops.ietf.org ; Bob Hinden ; Dan Romascanu ;
fen...@fenron.com ; fen...@gmail.com ; dtha...@microsoft.com
Hi all,
In RFC 4293,
- ipAddressTable is described as writable, this table uses address
as index, but the critical information for configuring address, the
address prefix ipAddressPrefix node is read-only. It seems
contradict to me.
This table uses address as index, but the public network and VPN
m
39 matches
Mail list logo
