2011/3/9 Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se
On Wed, 9 Mar 2011, Ran Atkinson wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt
I recommend that folks read the above draft. I haven't seen the
I-D announcement get cross-posted to the IPv6 WG,
2011/3/8 Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net
On 3/8/11 10:09 AM, Yu Hua bing wrote:
Hi, I have submit draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag-02. The problem to
be solved is as follows:
In some sites, the network administrators want to deploy stateless
address autoconfiguration,
2011/3/9 Mark Smith i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:09:46 +0800
Yu Hua bing yhb810...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, I have submit draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag-02. The problem to
be solved is as follows:
In some sites, the network administrators
Hi, every member of the 6man working group,good day!
I want to describe clearly what this draft is hoping to accomplish.
Please give me a chance.
In some sites, the network administrators want to deploy SLAAC, and just
permit the EUI-64 addresses to communicate with the Internet.They will
do as
On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 22:40:45 +1100, Karl Auer wrote：
My reading of RFC3484 is that privacy addresses are NOT preferred, but
that it should be possible on a host to change that preference. See Rule 7
in Section 5 (on page 11):
Rule 7: Prefer public addresses. If SA is a public address and SB is a
Hi
I updated the draft DisablePrivacy Flag of Prefix-information Option in the
Router Advertisement. The flag's name changed from
Privacy to DisablePrivacy.The link is
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yhb-6man-ra-privacy-flag/?include_text=1
.
Do you have some advice?
Yu Hua bing
Hi.
This is my draft, the link is
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yhb-6man-slaac-improvement/?include_text=1
Please give some advice.Thank you.
Abstract
IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration described by RFC4862 only supports
64-bit prefixes. This approach can't be deployed in the
