Erik Nordmark wrote:
> > Hosts with embedded gateway
> > functions, as described in RFC 1122, section 3.3.4.2 under: "Weak ES
> > Model" also qaulify as routers, and it doesn't matter at all what
> > different routers advertise - they are all still just *routers*.
>
> That wouldn't be consistent
> Hosts with embedded gateway
> functions, as described in RFC 1122, section 3.3.4.2 under: "Weak ES
> Model" also qaulify as routers, and it doesn't matter at all what
> different routers advertise - they are all still just *routers*.
That wouldn't be consistent with the definition of router
in
Thanks Matt,
I'm going to give things a rest for awhile now and let
the dust settle.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving to those who celebrate it.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matt Crawford wrote:
On Nov 26, 2003, at 4:50 PM, Fred Templin wrote:
139 ICMP Node Information Query [Crawford]
On Nov 26, 2003, at 4:50 PM, Fred Templin wrote:
139 ICMP Node Information Query [Crawford]
140 ICMP Node Information Response [Crawford]
I see that the Router Renumbering option is used by RFC 2894,
but does anyone know if the other options are used anywher
Responding one final time to my own post, I think we should forget
this business about hijacking and just use Matt's document instead:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-10.txt
It looks mature, well fleshed out, and has some nice features
like references to i
Fred Templin wrote:
The two ways I see to do this are to either specify a new IPv6 ND option
(call it a "Type II Router Solicitation" for lack of a better name) or
to add
bits to the existing IPv6 Router Soliciation message (e.g., in the
"Reserved"
field) that indicate the type of information
Pekka,
I meant only what I said - nodes should be able to selectively solicit
at least two different classes of information from routers. (Perhaps
there will be even more classes of information in the future; I
don't know).
Some routers might advertise only prefix/autoconfig information,
so they m
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Fred Templin wrote:
> However, the message that must not be lost in the terminology shuffle
> is that it very much *does* matter that nodes be able to selectively
> solicit at least two different classes of information from routers:
>
> 1) Classical prefix/autoconfig informa
As I said in my last message, my goal was to get a message out and
not push new terminology. I agree with Pekka that it doesn't matter at
all whether a router has just one interface or hundreds; it is still a
router.
(In fact, this is nearly the exact response I received when I asked a
related
q
(Tai out v6ops list..)
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Nick 'Sharkey' Moore wrote:
> On 2003-11-25, Fred Templin wrote:
> >
> > RFC 2461 specifies the behavior of traditional routers (i.e., "ROUTERS").
> > "ROUTERS" typically advertise autoconfig parameters and prefixes from
> > their attached networks. Hos
Hi everybody,
Now that we've opened the particular can of worms, it's time to close
it again. Let's not get into a too heated debate on what we call
IPv6 routers; we have more pressing matters to discuss.
Please don't continue the discussion of "ROUTERS" vs &q
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:22:43 -
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - A PC with multiple Network addressable entities such as storage media
I had the maybe not so strange idea a while back of having all components within a PC
have an IPv6 address, or at least represented
On 2003-11-25, Fred Templin wrote:
>
> RFC 2461 specifies the behavior of traditional routers (i.e., "ROUTERS").
> "ROUTERS" typically advertise autoconfig parameters and prefixes from
> their attached networks. Hosts use them to reach off-link nodes via default
> or more-specific routes. But, a n
003 1:43 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"
Hm,
maybe I was unclear -- let me try to clarify.
The distinction between routers and hosts and the criteria to separate between them is
one which I per
Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The NAT divides the network into two areas, the difference between them
> being that certain things look different when seen from points of view
> in the two areas. One of the things that differs is whether the NAT
> box appears to be a router or a non-routing
not sure on which mailing list we should continue this discussion.
> > The distinction between routers and hosts and the criteria to separate
> > between them is one which I perceive as having been well established
> > in Internet technology for a Long Time.
>
> Well, how do you qualify a
> I'm sure you'll excuse my naivete, but at least to my mind, a box
> performing packet forwarding service between different interfaces (be
> they logical or physical) to carry traffic where it itself is not an
> endpoint, makes a box fall into the general category of "a router".
Sure. That is the
Christian Huitema wrote:
>But never mind PC. How do you qualify a home NAT that appears as a host
>to the ISP, get an IPv4 address using DHCP, and then appears as a router
>to the local network?
The NAT divides the network into two areas, the difference between them
being that certain things look
Hi,
I'm sure you'll excuse my naivete, but at least to my mind, a box
performing packet forwarding service between different interfaces (be
they logical or physical) to carry traffic where it itself is not an
endpoint, makes a box fall into the general category of "a router".
How it gets it's add
> The distinction between routers and hosts and the criteria to separate
> between them is one which I perceive as having been well established
> in Internet technology for a Long Time.
Well, how do you qualify a PC running a software component like
Microsoft's "Internet Connection Sharing"? It ap
The goal of my message is to get a message out; not to
push new terminology. See RFC 1122 for a discussion
of the "strong" vs "weak" ES models.
Thanks - Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Havard Eidnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've heard in other discussions the distinction between host
Hm,
maybe I was unclear -- let me try to clarify.
The distinction between routers and hosts and the criteria to separate
between them is one which I perceive as having been well established
in Internet technology for a Long Time. I think we should think twice
before obfuscating this distinction,
but it appears that
the old paradigm of routers vs hosts seems limited for some applications that IPv6
enables.
Pascal
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Havard Eidnes
> Sent: mardi 25 novembre 2003 15:29
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
Whoops! I got just a tad bit overboard in my message and need to
add some balance. There will still be *plenty* of simple hosts in the
new paradigm that neither need nor want to be considered as "routers"
or "ROUTERS". They will include things like my home printer, my
home security system, my car's
Hm,
I hope I'm not the only one who find the choice of wording to be
unfortunate.
From the 10km-high perspective, there should be other and more
fundamental distinguishing marks than the prefix length of
advertisments or more general protocol behaviour to draw the line
between what has traditiona
The v6ops discussion from the 'draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt' thread
took on an interesting twist that I felt warranted a new subject heading.
RFC 2461 specifies the behavior of traditional routers (i.e., "ROUTERS").
"ROUTERS" typically advertise autoconfig parameters and prefixes from
their atta
26 matches
Mail list logo
