27;t it?
What he means is remove the fragment header in this case without any other
fragment code processing and continue handling the packet as if you'd have
received it without the ext hdr.
That this is still an expensive operation for a silly packet does not seem to
trickle down so avoidin
On 3. Jan 2012, at 05:04 , Fernando Gont wrote:
>> The idea of having the fragment offset to stay compatible the way things
>> worked
>> in IPv4 certainly was a great idea and has later proven to be a PITA. What
>> I'd
>> really like to have is a silly fragm
On 3. Jan 2012, at 05:05 , Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 07:48 PM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote:
>> You'd need to go to the origins most likely and get into touch with them,
>> ask them, work with them to identify things and see if you can find a
>> common denominator...
where this is logged as an error from the ipfw code,
>>> e.g.
>>
>> and I know of a couple of more people who have seen it and have ways to
>> trigger it with legitimate servers. I have never tracked things down
>> in more detail at some point back.
>
>
On 20. Dec 2011, at 11:44 , sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Hey,
I guess I should follow-up on this one.
>>> IPv6 allows packets to contain a Fragment Header, without the packet
>>> being actually fragmented into multiple pieces. Such packets
>>> typically result fr
On 22. Dec 2011, at 14:24 , Brian Haberman wrote:
> On 12/22/11 8:59 AM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>>
>> 5908 uses DHCPv6. We're extending RAs to advertise the NTP info.
>>
>
> I guess it is a little too early and I did not ask my ques
Dear members:
I agree with Karl that one end of the time interval is when the router sent its
most recent Router Advertisement, and that interval must be less than
MIN_DELAY_BETWEEN_RAS.
My question was about the other end of the interval.
Is it the computed value in the first paragraph (a
Dear members:
I have a question about the Router Advertisement sending algorithm of RFC 4861.
On page 49, it states:
“A router might process Router Solicitations as follows:
- Upon receipt of a Router Solicitation, compute a random delay
within the range 0 through MAX_RA_DELAY_TIME. If the
ist; Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting
Hi Woj,
On 10-10-26 10:27 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to state that I am very much not in favour of the WG
> adopting this document, due to a number of reasons presented below.
>
Hello DHCPv6'ers,
I have made an individual submission of an Internet-Draft which describes an
XML schema for configuration of DHCPv6 servers. Many of us may remember a
vaguely similar effort that we worked on in the late 1990's for a common
LDAP schema for configuration (and lease
RFC 2461:
Host Description:
4.2. Router Advertisement Message Format
Router Lifetime
16-bit unsigned integer. The lifetime associated with the default router in
units of seconds. The maximum value corresponds to 18.2 hours. A Lifetime of
0 indicates that the router is not a default router and
rohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
phone or email immediately and delete it!
-Original Message-
From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 00:50
To: Sandeep.P A
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: IPv6 ND statefu
Hi,
Please go through the RFC excerpts below and answer the query in the end.
RFC 4862
5.5.2. Absence of Router Advertisements
Even if a link has no routers, the DHCPv6 service to obtain
addresses
may still be available, and hosts may
Hi,
According to RFC 4861 Section 6.3.5. Timing out Prefixes and Default Routers
"Whenever the invalidation timer expires for a Prefix List entry, that entry
is discarded. 'NO EXISTING DESTINATION CACHE ENTRIES NEED BE UPDATED',
however. Should a reachability problem arise w
I will be out of the office starting 07/23/2007 and will not return until
07/27/2007.
I will respond to your message when I return.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.or
. Another issue
> which was brought up in dhc wg, is that the policy is a host global
> config, not per interface. This might be an issue when you have
> multiple interfaces. This needs to be considered for both RAs and
> DHCP.
>
> I have two problems with RAs. One is that all host
> I agree that if only prefix preference is needed (possibly also
> v4 vs v6), then it seems obvious to learn this together with the
> prefixes themselves. I.e. if you use slaac, then also get the
> preference that way (similarly with dhcp or other mechanisms).
> The preference is for d
Hi,
I would like to know whether following updates are stable enough to
implement or is there any possibility of having a newer revision on these
(other than a new RFC)
draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update-10.txt
draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-06.txt
draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2013-update-04.txt
thanks
I am not sure whether this is a deficiency in this model. Currently,
even if M/O is turned off, the nodes which had triggered stateful
protocol will continue using it. Unless or otherwise you reboot all the
nodes in the link, you cannot make the nodes to switch to stateless
autoconf. This could be
the system group
but it doesn't seem worthwhile to do so.
ipIfStatsOutForwDatagrams OBJECT-TYPE
SYNTAX Counter32
MAX-ACCESS read-only
STATUS current
DESCRIPTION
"The number of datagrams which this entity received and for
which it
At 06:57 PM 12/1/03 -0800, Wes Hardaker wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 16:04:26 -0800, "Shawn A. Routhier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> said:
>
>>>> 1) The description field for the ipAddressEntry object is simply
>>>&g
At 07:21 AM 12/1/03 -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
>Wes Hardaker wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately, I have just learned that I'd really need this update.
>>I'll say this is unfortunate because the cutoff date for comment is
>>tomorrow, and I haven't had a chance to
--
__
Vijayabhaskar A KPhone : +91-80-2053085
Hewlett Packard Mobile: +91-9845241382
29 Cunningham Road Telnet: 847-3085
Bangalore 52 Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Until you have the courage to lose sight of the shore,
you will
Dear All,
I am involved in the development of an application with IPv6
protocol support. I encountered a problem which i will explain .
Suppose i want to connect to a Server Socket through the interface
index X, i have to use the Scope_Id (member of struct sockaddr_in6)as X-1
if the server
24 matches
Mail list logo
