On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:51:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
In your opinion (no reasoning please), the rate limiting
configuration per-interface in the ICMPv6 spec should be a
1) SHOULD
2) MAY
3) Any of them is fine for you.
2 MAY
Stig
-
From: Fred Templin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 5:27 PM
To: Gupta Mukesh (Nokia-NET/MtView)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ICMPv6: Rate Limiting Configuration Per-Node or
Per-Interfaces
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In your opinion (no reasoning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In your opinion (no reasoning please), the rate limiting
configuration per-interface in the ICMPv6 spec should be a
1) SHOULD
2) MAY
3) Any of them is fine for you.
Bandwidth-based per-interface rate limiting is:
1) SHOULD
In other words, leave current text of [RFC2463],
WG Chair hat off
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think everyone agrees that per-interface configuration
would be a perfect solution and will provide a fine grained
control to the user. Is there anyone who disagrees with
this ? (Pekka ??)
I find it very useful.
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Brian Haberman wrote:
(f) Finally, an IPv6 node MUST limit the rate of ICMPv6 error
messages it originates in order to limit the processing at the
node and bandwidth and forwarding costs incurred on the
network by originating ICMPv6 error
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 14:40:59 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So the question is:
In your opinion (no reasoning please), the rate limiting
configuration per-interface in the ICMPv6 spec should be a
1) SHOULD
2) MAY
3) Any of them is fine for you.
My choice is 3.
I
1) SHOULD
Tom Petch
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 18 August 2004 22:22
Subject: ICMPv6: Rate Limiting Configuration Per-Node or Per-Interfaces
In your opinion (no reasoning please), the rate limiting
Choice is :
1) MAY
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 1:21 AM
Subject: ICMPv6: Rate Limiting Configuration Per-Node or Per-Interfaces
I think the discussion about the ICMPv6 rate limiting is
going in all directions and we
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think everyone agrees that per-interface configuration
would be a perfect solution and will provide a fine grained
control to the user. Is there anyone who disagrees with
this ? (Pekka ??)
My objection to this stems from the fact that an
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:51:49PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) SHOULD
2) MAY
3) Any of them is fine for you.
MAY...
David.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests:
1 for routers and 2 for hosts.
/jim
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of JINMEI Tatuya /
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 1:41 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: ICMPv6: Rate Limiting Configuration Per-Node
In your previous mail you wrote:
In your opinion (no reasoning please), the rate limiting
configuration per-interface in the ICMPv6 spec should be a
1) SHOULD
2) MAY
3) Any of them is fine for you.
= 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SHOULD choice #1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
{..]In your opinion (no reasoning please), the rate limiting
configuration per-interface in the ICMPv6 spec should be a
1) SHOULD
2) MAY
3) Any of them is fine for you.
My choice is 3.
Regards
Mukesh
PS: If I got anything wrong in this mail, please direct
13 matches
Mail list logo
