2012-12-13 21:05, RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com :
On 13 Dec 2012, at 10:46 , Rémi Després wrote:
Reverse mapping, whose use I still don't see,
cannot work the privacy option of RFC 4941
It still works fine, because the scope bit
is set to local scope for the RFC-4941 uses
On 12/12/2012 21:32, Ole Trøan wrote:
I think the only way to make progress on this question is to
discuss two points in a much more general way:
1. Does the current mapping of the u bit in the modified EUI format have
any value?
2. Does the current mapping of the g bit in the modified EUI
2012-12-12 18:26, Ran Atkinson ran.atkin...@gmail.com :
On 12 Dec 2012, at 12:21 , Rémi Després wrote:
Do you know any deployment with u=g=1 in this context ?
There is limited use today of IPv6 addresses that have
apparent unicast routing prefixes, but contain multicast
group IDs in
2012-12-12 18:38, RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com :
On 12 Dec 2012, at 12:14 , Rémi Després wrote:
In any case, IIDs for multicast addresses are out of scope for the IPv6
addressing architecture of RFC 4291.
Disagree. It is clear that RFC-4291 has reserved
the use of G==U==1 for
Aside: I'm departing on travel today, and will be offline
for several days. I apologise in advance for the brevity
of this note, but I lack time to write a longer note.
Earlier Brian Carpenter wrote:
I believe it's true that the u bit has no value for ILNP.
At one point there
On 13 Dec 2012, at 10:46 , Rémi Després wrote:
Reverse mapping, whose use I still don't see,
cannot work the privacy option of RFC 4941
It still works fine, because the scope bit
is set to local scope for the RFC-4941 uses
(RFC-4941, Section 3.2.1, Step 3).
Under IEEE 802 rules, as best I
Hi,
On Dec 8, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
wrote:
Hi all,
The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04)
describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over IPv6. The
draft describes the method for mapping 4rd IPv4 addresses
Hi, Bob,
Please see inline further explanations, and answers to your questions.
2012-12-12 01:18, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com:
Rémi,
Like Brian, I am also trying to understand this.
My initial personal conclusion to answer Suresh's question, I don't think
this is compatible
I think the only way to make progress on this question is to
discuss two points in a much more general way:
1. Does the current mapping of the u bit in the modified EUI format have any
value?
2. Does the current mapping of the g bit in the modified EUI format have any
value?
If the answer to
Hi, Jouni,
2012-12-12 10:04, Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com :
Hi,
On Dec 8, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
wrote:
Hi all,
The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04)
describes a solution for providing IPv4
2012-12-12 12:45, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com :
I think the only way to make progress on this question is to
discuss two points in a much more general way:
1. Does the current mapping of the u bit in the modified EUI format have
any value?
2. Does the current mapping
All,
I fully agree with Brian Carpenter's note of Tuesday,
December 11th at 10:55:05 +. I support his
perspective as expressed in that note.
I have read, but am NOT persuaded by, the responses
from Remi Despres to Brian's notes.
Further, I note that the combination ( U==1 a G==1)
already
Remi,
On Dec 12, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi, Jouni,
2012-12-12 10:04, Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com :
Hi,
On Dec 8, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
wrote:
Hi all,
The 4rd draft
Le 2012-12-12 à 17:12, Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com a écrit :
Remi,
On Dec 12, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi, Jouni,
2012-12-12 10:04, Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com :
Hi,
On Dec 8, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi all,
The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04)
describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over IPv6. The
draft describes the method for mapping 4rd IPv4 addresses to
Le 2012-12-12 à 17:18, Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi all,
The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04)
describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over
On Weds 12th December, Remi Despres wrote, in part:
Not sure however that the two proposed questions
are clear enough because today:
- some IIDs have u = 0, and some have u = 1,
- some IIDs have g = 0, and some have g = 1.
The only combination that isn't used is u=g=1.
While U==G==1 is
2012-12-12 17:06, RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com :
All,
I fully agree with Brian Carpenter's note of Tuesday,
December 11th at 10:55:05 +. I support his
perspective as expressed in that note.
I have read, but am NOT persuaded by, the responses
from Remi Despres to Brian's notes.
Le 2012-12-12 à 17:23, Ran Atkinson ran.atkin...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Weds 12th December, Remi Despres wrote, in part:
Not sure however that the two proposed questions
are clear enough because today:
- some IIDs have u = 0, and some have u = 1,
- some IIDs have g = 0, and some have g =
On 12 Dec 2012, at 12:21 , Rémi Després wrote:
Do you know any deployment with u=g=1 in this context ?
There is limited use today of IPv6 addresses that have
apparent unicast routing prefixes, but contain multicast
group IDs in the low-order 64-bits (IID).
Yours,
Ran
On 12 Dec 2012, at 12:14 , Rémi Després wrote:
In any case, IIDs for multicast addresses are out of scope for the IPv6
addressing architecture of RFC 4291.
Disagree. It is clear that RFC-4291 has reserved
the use of G==U==1 for multicast identifiers.
An important point to be noted is
On Weds, 12th December, Jouni Korhonen wrote, in part:
However, my point is that now we would be stepping into
IEEE territory, which I am not comfortable with.
Exactly so, and the cited reason (avoiding intrusion on
IEEE 802's standards) is sufficient reason for the 6MAN WG
not to approve
I think the only way to make progress on this question is to
discuss two points in a much more general way:
1. Does the current mapping of the u bit in the modified EUI format have
any value?
2. Does the current mapping of the g bit in the modified EUI format have
any value?
If the
Hi Suresh,
The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04)
describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over IPv6. The
draft describes the method for mapping 4rd IPv4 addresses to 4rd IPv6
Addresses. It uses a 4rd specific mark called the V octet in the first 8
Hi Brian,
Thank you for the quick comments on this issue.
Let me explain more below.
2012-12-11 11:55, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com:
Hi Suresh,
The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04)
describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over
Hi all,
The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04)
describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over IPv6. The
draft describes the method for mapping 4rd IPv4 addresses to 4rd IPv6
Addresses. It uses a 4rd specific mark called the V octet in the first 8
bits of
So who is looking at LISP?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 7, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
wrote:
Hi all,
The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04)
describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over IPv6. The
draft describes
27 matches
Mail list logo
