On 10/17/11 9:32 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
Would therefore humbly suggest a minimum/ default / recommendation of an
8 octet nonce option (minus the existing 16 pre-assigned bits) meaning
48 bits available for the nonce field, with the option of using longer
16 or 24 octet nonce options if an
The WG should produce one single document, not two. This is pretty
simple stuff here and we don't need 2 documents, each only 5 pages
long.
Indeed, I think it's sort of unfortunate that we have started out with
two competing documents, for no good reason that I can see. Its not
like the proposed
: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 6:15 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
The WG should produce one single document, not two
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 3:18 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
-Original Message-
From: pch-b29aa8...@u-1.phicoh.com [mailto:pch-b29aa8...@u-1.phicoh.com]
On Behalf Of Philip Homburg
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 11:00 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad
In your letter dated Mon, 17 Oct 2011 09:14:21 -0500 you wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 3:18 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New
In your letter dated Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:25:19 -0500 you wrote:
Appreciate the quick reply. Note BrianC already noted that 20 bits will
not suffice by saying It puts you into birthday-paradox territory on a
LAN with a few hundred nodes.. His email is at the URL below.
I think 20 bits should be already be more than enough. For simplicity, I would
just go for 64 bits.
Assuming hosts generate sufficiently strong pseudo-random numbers, 20 bits
means that once every one million cases of a genuine duplicate address,
both hosts may mistakenly assume there is a
-Original Message-
From: Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 12:33 PM
To: Philip Homburg; Hemant Singh (shemant); Ole Troan; Brian E Carpenter
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for,
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
for,draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
Since the number of bits for the nonce was an open question for the -01
document, we will add text in a -02 version reflecting the closure. So
then it
should be OK to specify the default to be 48 bits and let an
implementation use higher length
for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
Message-ID:m1rfpjn-0001...@stereo.hq.phicoh.net
In your letter dated Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:25:19 -0500 you wrote:
Appreciate the quick reply. Note BrianC already noted that 20 bits will
not suffice by saying It puts you into birthday-paradox
Notification for draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
I have no objection Brian. I can understand the reason for keeping the flow label "clean".
I was just wondering if there were any plans to use the flow label for ND traffic too, or
we should consider that there are no
List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
Also, looking at draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-07, i can see the following under
introduction:
A stateful
scenario is one where a node that processes the flow label value
needs to store information
[mailto:ach...@forthnetgroup.gr]
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2011 7:50 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
Also, looking at draft-ietf-6man-flow-3697bis-07, i can see
Folks,
Please review this document.
Thanks,
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 11:26 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: New Version Notification for
Tassos,
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:ach...@forthnet.gr]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:29 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
I was wondering...wouldn't the flow label
Hi,
I was wondering...wouldn't the flow label be a "better" field for
storing this random number?
If i remember correctly, early drafts of RPL were using it for loop
detection (ok, in a very different way), although in the later ones
a new option was chosen.
Tassos,
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:ach...@forthnet.gr]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:29 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
Lastly, i have a question about your example
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote on 15/10/2011 01:41:
Tassos,
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:ach...@forthnet.gr]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:29 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
[mailto:ach...@forthnet.gr]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:29 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
I was wondering...wouldn't the flow label be a better field for
storing this random number
Tassos,
-Original Message-
From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou [mailto:ach...@forthnetgroup.gr]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 7:31 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
btw, draft-asati
[mailto:ach...@forthnet.gr]
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 6:29 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
I was wondering...wouldn't the flow label be a better field for
storing this random number?
If i
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: FW: New Version Notification for
draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
I have no objection Brian. I can understand the reason for keeping the flow
label clean.
I was just wondering if there were any plans to use the flow
-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01.txt
btw, draft-asati-v6ops-dad-loopback seems to be dealing with the same problem
too (but from a different perspective).
Section 3.2 of it is quite similar though.
Are there any plans to merge these two docs? If not, will there be any
references of each other
24 matches
Mail list logo
