At Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:04:39 -0400,
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I disagree a bit with this resolution. These sorts of undetected
duplicate addresses do happen in practice, due to network partition/
repair and the effect of things like Spanning Tree's default port
blocking.
As a
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 writes:
At Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:04:39 -0400,
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a result, what I've done in the Solaris implementation is to
'defend' the address once -- by sending out my own advertisement in
reply to the received one -- but setting a flag. If I
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 writes:
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:43:34 -0400,
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How should an implementor actually take care here? Are you perhaps
referring to the possibility of endless NA battles between a pair of
misconfigured systems? Or something else?
I
(Intentionally separating the thread since this is irrelevant to the
main focus of completing 2462bis)
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:43:34 -0400,
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, I'd point out the same argument could apply to the
two-hour rule adopted in RFC2462 and kept in
address that will result in the bad
address to be replaced.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:18 AM
To: James Carlson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
(Intentionally
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 writes:
(Intentionally separating the thread since this is irrelevant to the
main focus of completing 2462bis)
Agreed; and changed the subject line as well.
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:43:34 -0400,
James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, I'd point out
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:03:01 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The gist of your new paragraph is fine by me. However, you have un-fixed
what I clearly defined in the past for behavior. The match statement has
to apply to tentative address as well as an assigned address.
Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:48 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: James Carlson; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:03:01 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED
At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:18:20 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think Tatuya first leaned towards the silent discard behavior because
he wanted text in 2462bis to match text in first para of section 7.2.5
of 2461bis. However, I see that as matching apples with oranges. The
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
In conclusion I'd like to propose to change the paragraph of
Section 5.4.4 from:
On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an interface,
node behavior depends on whether the target address is tentative or
matches a unicast or anycast
8:44 AM
To: JINMEI Tatuya /
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
In conclusion I'd like to propose to change the paragraph of Section
5.4.4 from:
On receipt of a valid Neighbor
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an
interface, node behavior depends on whether the target address is
tentative or matches a unicast or anycast address assigned to the
interface. If the target address is tentative, the
At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:16:01 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for agreeing with our suggestion to not silently discard the
advertisement. The new paragraph from you is still not complete
because you have missed the part when a match of target address is
not found
. Processing anycast with 2461bis
sounds fine.
Thanks.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 12:39 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Vlad Yasevich; Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case
At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:00:10 -0400,
Bernie Volz (volz) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Though putting this into a list (1., 2., 3.) would likely make it
much more readable and parseable.
On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an
interface, node behavior depends on whether
Hi Hemant,
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Sorry, if I missed the paragraph Tatuya wanted to add. As I said before,
could I please see the new para for section 5.4.4 of 2461bis and I will
The edit he was proposing was for 2462bis not 2461bis. The old para in
section 5.4.4
On receipt of a
:06 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / ; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
Hi Hemant,
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Sorry, if I missed the paragraph Tatuya wanted to add. As I said
before, could I please see the new para for section 5.4.4
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Suresh,
Yes, sorry, I had a typo wrt 2461 vs 2462. Thanks so much for providing
the para. Now I have a separate question to you folks.
What IPv6 network has an interface receiving an NA where the target
address in the NA matched an assigned address on the
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org; JINMEI Tatuya /
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Suresh,
Yes, sorry, I had a typo wrt 2461 vs 2462. Thanks so much for
providing the para. Now I have a separate question
19 matches
Mail list logo
