I have the following suggestion:
IPv6 hosts can try to gain knowledge of the path MTU to a destination. If the
path blocks or filters PMTUD etc, then the host should revert to 1280 bytes
else the hosts can use a higher packet size.
This mechanism would make Fragment header redundant anyway
The
Hi Remi,
On 11/02/2013, at 9:13 PM, Rémi Després
> ...
>> So if I understand it correctly, if a PE-CE link already has a /127 prefix
>> assigned to it- and we wanted to use the CE as a 4rd CE, we'll have to
>> assign an additional IPv6 prefix to the CE with 64-bit IIDs?
>>
>> Pls share litt
:
> Hi, Usman,
>
> Thank you for this opportunity to clarify once more an important point.
>
> 2013-02-09 03:16, Usman Latif :
>
>> Hi Remi,
>>
>> A few months ago, I raised some concerns around RFC 6164 which permitted use
>> of /127 prefixes on inter-route
Hi Remi,
A few months ago, I raised some concerns around RFC 6164 which permitted use of
/127 prefixes on inter-router p2p links.
You mention use of u/g bits and reserved IID range for 4rd
Don't you think that network operators who have by now implemented 6164 based
addressing in their networks
m now after successively going
through 3627, 4291, 5375 and now 6164
Regards,
Usman
Sent from my iPhone
On 28/09/2012, at 3:38 AM, Usman Latif wrote:
> I'll conclude on the following points:
>
> i. The only guidance that's out there today for device loopbacks (whether
>
75
should be considered
Sent from my iPhone
On 27/09/2012, at 11:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> Usman,
>
> On 27/09/2012 12:43, Usman Latif wrote:
>> Hi Joel,
>>
>> RFC 6164 overriding 3627 seems logical
>> However, I am looking more from perspectiv
Hi Joel,
RFC 6164 overriding 3627 seems logical
However, I am looking more from perspective of 5375
Also If one has to "go read the discussion on 6164" to understand it - this is
itself an indication that 6164 has not done a good job of providing a
conclusive recommendation on use of prefixes w
Sorry i didn't realize that you own this list - my apologies
If you really have work to do pls disregard my emails instead of responding
with meaningless emails that are not helping either of us...
On 27/09/2012, at 5:10 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> If you have links to any previous discussions /
--- On Thu, 27/9/12, Randy Bush wrote:
From: Randy Bush
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and
Device Loopbacks
To: "Usman Latif"
Cc: "Ole Trøan" , "ipv6@ietf.org"
Received: Thursday, 27 September, 2012, 9:17 AM
nt for strictly point-to-point links and
Device Loopbacks
To: "Usman Latif"
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Received: Thursday, 27 September, 2012, 4:52 AM
Hi Usman,
At 17:08 26-09-2012, Usman Latif wrote:
> There is clearly two set of recommendations over the same addressing scenario
> which I
Ole Trøan
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and
Device Loopbacks
To: "Usman Latif"
Cc: "Randy Bush" , "ipv6@ietf.org"
Received: Wednesday, 26 September, 2012, 1:06 PM
> Also its a good idea to encompass recommendations for p2
52 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
perhaps we learned some things over time?
randy
From: Usman Latif
Date: 25 September 2012 11:30:09 AM AEST
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and
Device Loopbacks
To summarize the whole discussio
loopback addressing
Regards
Usman
--- On Sat, 22/9/12, Usman Latif wrote:
From: Usman Latif
Subject: Re: IPv6 address assignment for strictly point-to-point links and
Device Loopbacks
To: "ipv6@ietf.org"
Cc: "Brian E Carpenter"
Received: Saturday, 22 September, 2
n
Sent from my iPhone
On 22/09/2012, at 12:35 PM, Usman Latif wrote:
> Thanks Brian, your email clears a lot of ambiguity.
> So I presume it's safe to use /127s on different p2p links from the same /64
> subnet. (as per 6164)
> This pretty much means that the second statement in
r all bases and ensure that we don't end up in any
controversy in future.
Regards,
Usman
Sent from my iPhone
On 22/09/2012, at 5:23 AM, "George, Wes" wrote:
> Responding to a couple of different things below inline with [WEG]
>
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ip
in the future - you can expand this configuration _without_ a major
> renumbering event.
>
>
> HTH!
> /TJ
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:03 AM, Usman Latif wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am one of the many Network Engineers/architects that are today on the verge
> of assi
Hi,
I am one of the many Network Engineers/architects that are today on the verge
of assigning IPv6 addressing in their core networks.
There are two points that I would like to open a debate on and really looking
for some substantial reasoning and logic on.
And the points are:
Q1: "What i
17 matches
Mail list logo
