this behavior makes sense. It
at least violates a SHOULD requirement of Section 7.2.4 of
= I think you meant 7.2.5.
draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05.txt:
If the target's Neighbor Cache entry is in the INCOMPLETE
state when
the advertisement is received, one of two things happens
be great
if you can provide a pointer to the discussion.
In any case, I personally don't think this behavior makes sense. It
at least violates a SHOULD requirement of Section 7.2.4 of
draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05.txt:
If the target's Neighbor Cache entry is in the INCOMPLETE state when
and does that match your (our) understanding?
= Yes. Except I didn't explicitly include the case where no entry exists at
all.
Then, let's revisit the change to APPENDIX C in 2461bis-05. My point
of the first message of this thread is that the change does not cover
cases where a neighbor
to APPENDIX C in 2461bis-05. My point
of the first message of this thread is that the change does not cover
cases where a neighbor cache entry does not exist when the unsolicited
message arrives (see the diff I attached to a previous message
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05861
(Sorry for the delayed response...I hope you still remember the
context)
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:06:20 -0500,
Soliman, Hesham [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sending in hibernate mode.
I'm not sure if this one is correctly addressed:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05107.html
(Sorry for the delayed response...I hope you still remember the
context)
= No probs, I remember it clearly.
I've compared the difference of the state machine in Appendix C
between the 03 and 05 versions (attached below). At
least it doesn't
seem to cover the case where the
is there a problem with doing ND?
Stig
Thanks again,
Vishwas
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 11:55 AM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: Stig Venaas; IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05
Vishwas,
You said There is no difference
be
forwarded off the link? If you agree that it stays on the link,
why is there a problem with doing ND?
Stig
Thanks again,
Vishwas
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 11:55 AM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: Stig Venaas; IPv6
Subject:
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:21:01AM -0800, Vishwas Manral wrote:
Hi,
While going through the draft, I noticed there is no talk of tunneled ND
message in the entire draft.
The draft states: -
By setting the Hop Limit to 255, Neighbor Discovery is immune to
off-link
Vishwas,
You said There is no difference between a tunnel link and any other
link media I think.
That is the exact issue in my case for ND messages. If we just send a
packet tunneled, the TTL check for ND messages fails as we can send a
packet from multiple hops away by just adding another
28, 2005 11:55 AM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: Stig Venaas; IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05
Vishwas,
You said There is no difference between a tunnel link and any other
link media I think.
That is the exact issue in my case for ND messages. If we just send a
packet tunneled, the TTL
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral wrote:
By setting the Hop Limit to 255, Neighbor Discovery is immune to
off-link senders that accidentally or intentionally send ND messages.
However if we send a basic ND message in IP-in-IP tunneled packet and
send the packet across, we can easily send
inside a tunneled
packet, unless it is explicitly so configured.
Thanks,
Vishwas
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:10 PM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral
Sending in hibernate mode.
I'm not sure if this one is correctly addressed:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg05107.html
(BTW: msg05107 is a comment on version 03, and I could not get a 04
version. Has that version been issued, or is the version number
bumped?)
Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:10 PM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral wrote:
By setting the Hop Limit to 255, Neighbor Discovery is immune to
off-link senders
Hi,
I think I found a small typo in the draft: -
asymmetric reachability
- a link where non-reflexive and/or non-transitive
reachability is part of normal operation. (Non-
reflexive reachability means packets from A reach B
but packets from B don't
Begin forwarded message:
From: Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: November 1, 2005 13:04:17 EST
To: The IESG [EMAIL PROTECTED], Margaret Wasserman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Mark Townsley [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Hinden
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Request To Advance: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05
: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05.txt
Pages : 88
Date: 2005-10-21
This document specifies the Neighbor Discovery protocol for IP
Version 6. IPv6 nodes on the same link use Neighbor Discovery to
discover each other's presence, to determine each
Folks,
The latest version of 2461bis should appear soon on the web.
All issues raised so far were addressed in this draft.
I think this concludes the WG LC and hopefully the chairs would
initiate IESG LC soon.
Thanks,
Hesham
===
This
19 matches
Mail list logo
