On Aug 18, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Aug 18, 2011, at 12:43 PM, George, Wesley wrote:
B. 7.4 ND cache priming and refresh
WEG] might be worth thinking about situations where DHCPv6 is in use and
whether that can be leveraged to achieve something similar to this,
On Aug 18, 2011, at 4:49 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
...then sleep proxies will need to possess the RSA private keys for all the
CGAs that their client hosts register with them...
Correction: I think SEND as it is currently constituted actually just breaks
sleep proxies entirely. A
On Aug 18, 2011, at 3:43 PM, George, Wesley wrote:
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel
Jaeggli
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 1:58 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance
1
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel
Jaeggli
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 1:58 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Questions from the Authors of draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance
1. Is this document (draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance) worthwhile?
WEG] Yes
2
On Aug 18, 2011, at 12:43 PM, George, Wesley wrote:
B. 7.4 ND cache priming and refresh
WEG] might be worth thinking about situations where DHCPv6 is in use and
whether that can be leveraged to achieve something similar to this, i.e.
watch the DHCPv6 messages go past and
On Aug 7, 2011, at 10:57 , Joel Jaeggli wrote:
2. Is there critique of the two proposed 4861 changes?
A. 7.3 NDP Protocol Gratuitous NA
B. 7.4 ND cache priming and refresh
In the 6MAN session at IETF 81, I got up at the microphone and muttered some
dark things about network
On 8/18/11 3:52 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
Network sleep proxies are a subtype of hosts. One imagines that a network
sleep proxy might be configured to send unsolicited Neighbor Advertisements
messages on behalf of sleeping hosts, which may or may not be configured
differently than their
On Aug 18, 2011, at 16:04 , Erik Nordmark wrote:
How would such sleep proxies interact with SeND?
Theoretically, not very securely. This problem, if you ask me, is one of the
major deficiencies in SEND. It needs to be revised to support sleep proxies.
(It's not just network sleep proxies
In your letter dated Sun, 7 Aug 2011 10:57:45 -0700 you wrote:
B. Assumption 2 a draft updating 4861 would be a standards track =
document.
I think it would be best to create a discussion document that describes the
various ways that RFC-4861 can be changed to deal with remote attacks on
Greetings,
This is followup from our discussion in both v6ops and 6man. We got a lot of
useful input, but I would like to ask the mailing list to see if we can
solidify this into a course of action.
For reference:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gashinsky-v6nd-enhance-00.txt
Thanks!
On Aug 7, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Joel,
I've been and am in the middle of starting a new job and moving
inter-state over the last few weeks, so I haven't been able to spend as
much time on this as I'd have liked to, as I'm quite interested in this
issue being
11 matches
Mail list logo
