Hi Ralph,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Ralph Droms
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 9:07 AM
> To: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Distribution of RFC 3484 address selection policies
>
> Seems to
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:59:11PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> > Also worth checking if there are address selection problems that 3484
> > doesn't address.
>
> Like selecting privacy addresses?
My feeling is that it's sufficient to disa
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:06:40AM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > > Seems to me the WG ought to work through these questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Is RFC 3484 adequate to solve th
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 16:51 +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:06:40AM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > > Seems to me the WG ought to work through these questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Is RFC 3484 adequate to solve the addre
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 03:18:33PM +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:06:40AM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > Seems to me the WG ought to work through these questions:
> >
> > 1. Is RFC 3484 adequate to solve the address selection problem?
> >
> > My guess is "no", because of its
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 09:06:40AM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Seems to me the WG ought to work through these questions:
>
> 1. Is RFC 3484 adequate to solve the address selection problem?
>
> My guess is "no", because of its references to site-local addresses and
> other deficiencies discussed i
Seems to me the WG ought to work through these questions:
1. Is RFC 3484 adequate to solve the address selection problem?
My guess is "no", because of its references to site-local addresses and
other deficiencies discussed in this thread. If the answer is no, the
first step for the WG would be t
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:24:51PM +1000, Greg Daley wrote:
>
> I'm not sure anyone is doing it, but renumbering is applicable
> there as a means of providing information about which prefixes
> are valid.
We went through a pretty full enterprise renumbering procedure, but were
able to control add
Hi Stig,
> -Original Message-
> From: Stig Venaas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:24 AM
> To: Greg Daley
> Cc: timothy enos; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Distribution of RFC 3484 address selection policies
>
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 a
Hi Mark,
Mark K. Thompson wrote:
Hi,
On 9 Aug 2005, at 11:53, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
On 2005/08/09, at 5:40, Mark K. Thompson wrote:
the lack of field definition for labels has seen different OSes use
different datatypes for the label, from string through
stringified-integer to integer
Hi Greg,
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Daley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 3:24 AM
> To: timothy enos
> Cc: 'Stig Venaas'; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Distribution of RFC 3484 address selection policies
>
> Hi Ti
Hi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[cut]
So a question then is whether that is enough or if there are
many cases where the full policy (including source address
selection) is needed. If the full policy is needed in some cases,
then we have to consider whether it's worth having two solutions.
I don't k
Hi,
On 9 Aug 2005, at 11:53, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
On 2005/08/09, at 5:40, Mark K. Thompson wrote:
the lack of field definition for labels has seen different OSes
use different datatypes for the label, from string through
stringified-integer to integer. Any cross-platform policy
specifi
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:23:46AM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:24:23PM +1000, Greg Daley wrote:
> [...]
> > I'd suggest that if preferences are all that's needed, then the
> > function matches that for which the options are used now.
>
> I agree that if only prefix prefe
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 05:24:23PM +1000, Greg Daley wrote:
[...]
> I'd suggest that if preferences are all that's needed, then the
> function matches that for which the options are used now.
I agree that if only prefix preference is needed (possibly also
v4 vs v6), then it seems obvious to learn
Hi Tim,
timothy enos wrote:
[cut]
In that case, I think we
should try to look for possible solutions. Some applications might
want to specify their own particular behaviour, but I see several
reasons why an administrator may want to specify a default.
Using DHCP may be one solution. The only al
OTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Stig Venaas
> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 3:44 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Distribution of RFC 3484 address selection policies
>
> RFC 3484, and implementations thereof, allows for a sysadmin to
> configure address selection
Hi Fred.
Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 8, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Greg Daley wrote:
I'm not sure anyone is doing it, but renumbering is applicable there
as a means of providing information about which prefixes are valid.
One of the outcomes of the v6ops WG last week was the observation that
the Ro
On Aug 8, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Greg Daley wrote:
I'm not sure anyone is doing it, but renumbering is applicable
there as a means of providing information about which prefixes are
valid.
One of the outcomes of the v6ops WG last week was the observation
that the Router Renumbering Protocol is n
Mark,
On 2005/08/09, at 5:40, Mark K. Thompson wrote:
>
> On 8 Aug 2005, at 21:16, Fred Baker wrote:
>
>
>> personally, I an see a *lot* of reasons to leave such decisions in the hand
>> of the administration. The most compelling is: "try taking it out of the
>> administration's hands. Just try
Stig,
> Do you agree this is something that should be solved? It's probably
> a good idea to discuss that before going into particular solutions.
I think this is a good thing to work on. I'd like to point out that
there are several related pieces of work interested in similar functionality.
The m
Hi Fred,
Fred Baker wrote:
how do the routers (which control router discovery) get this policy
information?
There's no existing mechanism for describing the source address
selection policies using router discovery.
For router discovery itself though, the configured IPv6
prefixes are typicall
how do the routers (which control router discovery) get this policy
information?
On Aug 8, 2005, at 4:58 PM, Greg Daley wrote:
Hi Mark,
Mark K. Thompson wrote:
[cut]
So, yes, I agree that centralisation of address selection of
policy is important (and necessary for folks using ULAs with
Hi Mark,
Mark K. Thompson wrote:
[cut]
So, yes, I agree that centralisation of address selection of policy is
important (and necessary for folks using ULAs with greater-than- site
scope multicast), and that DHCPv6 appears a reasonable choice, but
there are fundamental issues with RFC3484 t
On 8 Aug 2005, at 21:16, Fred Baker wrote:
personally, I an see a *lot* of reasons to leave such decisions in
the hand of the administration. The most compelling is: "try taking
it out of the administration's hands. Just try. I dare ya."
DHCP/DHCPv6 seems like a reasonable choice of dynami
personally, I an see a *lot* of reasons to leave such decisions in
the hand of the administration. The most compelling is: "try taking
it out of the administration's hands. Just try. I dare ya."
DHCP/DHCPv6 seems like a reasonable choice of dynamic host
configuration protocol.
On Aug 8, 2
RFC 3484, and implementations thereof, allows for a sysadmin to
configure address selection policy on a single host. I think this is
useful, and I suppose also the wg since the RFC was published. One
typical example might be preferring IPv4 over IPv6.
If I as a site administrator want all the host
27 matches
Mail list logo
