o DNS
o MLDv2 (listener only)
o OSPFv3
Early-Bird Registration will be closed Dec. 25, 2009.
Please don't miss it, if you have an interest in this event.
You can get details at http://www.tahi.org/inop/10thinterop.html.
Best regards,
--
Yukiyo Akisada akis
:
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 18:06 +0900, Yukiyo Akisada wrote:
I have a question about upper-layer reachability confirmation defined in
RFC 4861.
When the neighbor cache state for the default router is STALE
and the host sends a packet to off-link,
the default router sends redirect packet
router is REACHABLE?
Personally, I didn't expected this behavior.
But I found that an implementation behaves like this
when I'm developping the conformance tester.
How do you think about this behavior?
Thanks,
--
Yukiyo Akisada [EMAIL PROTECTED
-based MAC address.
When DAD fails for IP address based on software-based MAC address,
should the system disable IP operation on also that interface?
Thanks,
Yukiyo Akisada [EMAIL PROTECTED
(2461bis text is about on-link and has no DoS issue,
2462bis text is about addrconf and has the 2 hour rule).
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yukiyo Akisada [EMAIL PROTECTED
is invalid packet, right?
I feel putting text to 6.3.4 makes 2461bis more clear.
How do you think?
Thanks,
Yukiyo Akisada [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working
just ignore the packet.
But I still think a node need to send Parameter Problem,
because the packet is broken.
How should the node do?
Thanks,
Yukiyo Akisada [EMAIL PROTECTED
RetransTimer=5 sec.,
should the router use 5 sec. as his own RetransTimer?
I think 2461bis can be more clear.
Regards,
Yukiyo Akisada [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests
in order for the solicitation to have been received.
It isn't contradiction, but it is unclear.
The former seems that it disallows omission of TLL option,
and the latter seems that it allows omission.
I think 2461bis can be more clear about this option.
Regards.
Yukiyo Akisada [EMAIL
