Hi Thomas,
I would like to hear your take on how we should encode conex information
in IPv6 packets
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/conex/charter/)
This is critical for conex and we are not clear on how we could do this
in a way that could be deployed.
Thanks in advance for any opinions
Xu Xiaohu escribió:
-邮件原件-
发件人: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marc...@it.uc3m.es]
发送时间: 2009年12月10日 23:41
收件人: Xu Xiaohu
抄送: 'Christian Huitema'; beh...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org
主题: Re: [BEHAVE] Reason(s) for Modified EUI-64 format to apply to ALL
non-0::/3 IPv6 addresses ?
Xu
Xu Xiaohu escribió:
-邮件原件-
发件人: marcelo bagnulo braun [mailto:marc...@it.uc3m.es]
发送时间: 2009年12月10日 9:26
收件人: Xu Xiaohu
抄送: 'Christian Huitema'; beh...@ietf.org; ipv6@ietf.org
主题: Re: [BEHAVE] Reason(s) for Modified EUI-64 format to apply to ALL
non-0::/3 IPv6 addresses ?
Xu
Christian Huitema escribió:
At least the former usage has some certain applications. For example, in
case of NAT64, if a dual-stack host could distinguish synthesized IPv6
addresses from native IPv6 addresses, it will not prefer a synthesized IPv6
address to an IPv4 address for initiating a
Christian Huitema escribió:
It seems ok to redefine the specification once the constraint on
IPv4-embeded IPv6 addresses has been removed, just as what we are now doing
on SIIT. (E.g., replacing the IPv4-Compatible IPv6 Address and IPv4-Mapped
IPv6 Address with IPv4-translatable IPv6 address and
Xu Xiaohu escribió:
-邮件原件-
发件人: behave-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:behave-boun...@ietf.org] 代表
marcelo bagnulo braun
发送时间: 2009年12月9日 21:24
收件人: Christian Huitema
抄送: beh...@ietf.org; Xu Xiaohu; ipv6@ietf.org
主题: Re: [BEHAVE] Reason(s) for Modified EUI-64 format to apply to ALL
Thomas Narten escribió:
What information do we have from the real world about deployability?
It would be foolish to mandate something that doesn't work well.
I think these are key questions we need to think hard about.
As far as I can tell, SEND has not been implemented in any
Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:
On 8 jul 2009, at 9:42, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
for example, suppose you want to run shim6 on the nat64 box, how
would you do it if you cannot use the lower 64 bits to store crypto
info?
So then you would have one NAT64 with two Prefix64s, where the CGA
Christian Huitema escribió:
May I throw a dose of caution in this debate about host identifiers formats?
Many transition mechanisms rely on encoding information in the 64 bit host
identifier. This is of course a tempting design point, because it diminishes
the amount of state that servers
Hi Albert,
El 12/11/2007, a las 19:28, Manfredi, Albert E escribió:
I found nothing objectionable at all in the draft.
Matter of fact, it seems to address something that also occurs with
IPv4, with multihomed hosts. And that apparently, some OSs screw up
royally. Which is, if a multi-homed
Hi Havard,
El 12/11/2007, a las 17:27, Havard Eidnes escribió:
AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address
based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix
site, is that correct?
I don't like the term, because I first do a destination lookup and
only look up
El 15/05/2006, a las 17:54, Rémi Denis-Courmont escribió:
Le Dimanche 14 Mai 2006 17:44, vous avez écrit :
El 13/05/2006, a las 12:14, Rémi Denis-Courmont escribió:
There are possibly more troublesome issues:
1/ how to handle UDP, which is also supported by getaddrinfo(), and
has more varied
El 10/05/2006, a las 18:45, Rémi Denis-Courmont escribió:
Le Mercredi 10 Mai 2006 10:35, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
ulas and private address can be used to reach a global destiantion
address heavily depending on the local setup, hence local
configuration per case is needed in the general
El 11/05/2006, a las 1:21, Perry Lorier escribió:
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Le Mercredi 10 Mai 2006 10:35, marcelo bagnulo braun a écrit :
ulas and private address can be used to reach a global destiantion
address heavily depending on the local setup, hence local
configuration per case
El 10/05/2006, a las 18:49, Durand, Alain escribió:
In my previous live, we were all using a large server for many things.
That server had 17 physical interfaces. Each interface had one IPv4
address
and 2 IPv6 addressses. Each client had also one IPv4 address and two
IPv6 addresses.
That
El 11/05/2006, a las 12:10, David Woodhouse escribió:
On Thu, 2006-05-11 at 09:53 +0300, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
right, but i guess it should be possible to define some heuristics to
reduce the number of attempts since it is likely that several of those
addresses have the same
El 09/05/2006, a las 17:27, Pekka Savola escribió:
2) v6 ULA address selection problems
Deploying ULAs doesn't help here, it just makes the problem worse as
you couldn't even use the 'matching scope' tweak.
Do we need to specify that v6 ULAs should be treated as site scope
for the
Hi Francis,
thanks for your feedback
comments below...
El 05/12/2005, a las 10:46, Francis Dupont escribió:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Comments?
= I have some comments:
- if the border router for X to A knows the outage it can deprecate
the A prefix and propagate the
Hi Greg,
El 12/08/2005, a las 2:14, Greg Daley escribió:
Is this what people want to use the proposed option for, though?
Or are they just interested in providing an information service about
the advertised prefixes?
I guess that it also would make sense to provide label/preference
Is it practical to change in other regions?
We had a discussion about IPv6 address management in the LACNIC VIII
meeting in Lima (30 of june 2005) and my reading of the comments of
the meeting is that they are pretty much in line with the
considerations expressed by Thomas in his drafts.
Hi Kosuke,
El 18/07/2005, a las 15:12, Kosuke Ito escribió:
marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
Hi,
El 14/07/2005, a las 16:43, Kosuke Ito escribió:
Do we like to creat SWAMP already?
i fail to understand why this change would create swamp? could you
expand on this?
I just extend my
Hi,
El 14/07/2005, a las 16:43, Kosuke Ito escribió:
Do we like to creat SWAMP already?
i fail to understand why this change would create swamp? could you
expand on this?
Regarding the assignment size, when we held JP Open Policy
Meeting last week, there are many voices saying that
22 matches
Mail list logo
