On Wednesday 29 October 2003 22:03, Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
Combining this, and the comment from the AI_ADDRCONFIG thread, and adding
v6ops in the Cc:..
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Juan Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
[...]
You will have to give me other arguments to kill the on-link assuption.
You
On Thursday 30 October 2003 01:43, Soliman Hesham wrote:
I quote yourself on a previous mail on this thread:
The problems of this assumption are discussed in section 3
of Alain's draft. The draft suggests that this assumption
should be removed from ND specs. Here is the suggestion:
AFAIK, nothing else would break (fortunately).
I've already got an scenario, which is what you are
trying to break. Isn't that enough ?
Of course I can configure _manually_ the hosts ,
as well as configuring the IP address and the default route
(oops...why do people use DHCP
On Thursday 30 October 2003 18:15, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Juan Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
[...]
Ooops, forget the oven :-), just think as if the fridge was shipped
with an Ipv6 address prefix and the scheduler was shipped with
another IPv6 prefix :)
The whole point of
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
For example, your fridge wants to talk with the scheduler to ask for
more food. The oven, which is sending RAs, is turned off. This will
cause no communication at all. I prefer 3 seconds of delay. I'm the
auto-communication kind of man.
I don't see how you reached the
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Juan Rodriguez Hervella wrote:
[...]
Ooops, forget the oven :-), just think as if the fridge was shipped
with an Ipv6 address prefix and the scheduler was shipped with
another IPv6 prefix :)
The whole point of IPv6 (and also IP) is that machines aren't shipped with
Hello, please read at the bottom:
On Wednesday 29 October 2003 05:52, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
This is a fairly straight forward issue.
see:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-00.
txt
2461 says in section 5.2 :
Next-hop determination
On Wednesday 29 October 2003 14:49, Soliman Hesham wrote:
I think this scenario is useful for IPv6 small-devices, so I
don't quite agree
with you all.
I feel that we are undoing a lot of things and we will end
up with no
autoconfiguration features at all. This might be a good
This is a fairly straight forward issue.
see: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-00.txt
2461 says in section 5.2 :
Next-hop determination for a given unicast destination operates as
follows. The sender performs a longest prefix match against
the scenario is not significantly attractive to me.
= Completely agree with you.
on the other
hand, the issue with the current conceptual sending
algorithm (fallback
to IPv4 gets deleyed severely) is severe, so i'm all
for the suggested
change.
=
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:46:44 -0500
Soliman Hesham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To allow the scenario mentioned above to work, hosts would
have to communicate using their link-local addresses.
This seems like a reasonable suggestion, any objections?
yes. I strenously object to any expectation
11 matches
Mail list logo
