Hi Bert,
On Thu, 12 May 2011 17:22:05 -0500
Manfredi, Albert E albert.e.manfr...@boeing.com wrote:
Mark Smith wrote:
I think it would be reasonable to make DHCP a SHOULD, however
I've thought that one of the reasons SLAAC exists is to provide
simpler and lighter weight address
To put it another way, if we think there is a good use case for this
as Ole describes, we will be doing a service to the devices that
don't have their IPv6 code yet, to make it a SHOULD so they are
more likely to implement it.
Here is some proposed text:
5.3. Default Router
Ole,
Getting back to some of your other points...
Ole Troan otr...@employees.org writes:
* RFC2675: I would just remove that.
The docuent currently says:
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] MAY be supported.
How about I replace that with:
IPv6 Jumbograms [RFC2675] are an
On Friday 6th May 2011, Ole Troan wrote in part:
basically I want the document to say that IETF has standardised
two mechanisms to configure hosts. one using ND and one using DHCP.
As they apply to different management models, nodes SHOULD implement both.
On 12th May 2011, Thomas Narten
I personally would support having DHCP be a SHOULD rather than a
MAY.
thank you
randy
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Ran,
On May 12, 2011, at 7:55 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
On Friday 6th May 2011, Ole Troan wrote in part:
basically I want the document to say that IETF has standardised
two mechanisms to configure hosts. one using ND and one using DHCP.
As they apply to different management models, nodes SHOULD
On 2011-05-13 01:23, Thomas Narten wrote:
...
I personally would support having DHCP be a SHOULD rather than a
MAY. The justification in my mind is that if you want the network
operator to have the choice of whether they want to use Stateless
addrconf OR DHCP, they only have that choice of
On Thu, 12 May 2011 15:20:30 +0200
Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote:
To put it another way, if we think there is a good use case for this
as Ole describes, we will be doing a service to the devices that
don't have their IPv6 code yet, to make it a SHOULD so they are
more likely to
Hi Thomas,
On Thu, 12 May 2011 09:23:20 -0400
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Ole,
Getting back to some of your other points...
Ole Troan otr...@employees.org writes:
* RFC2675: I would just remove that.
However, I do not see evidence that the WG has changed its
Mark Smith wrote:
I think it would be reasonable to make DHCP a SHOULD, however
I've thought that one of the reasons SLAAC exists is to provide
simpler and lighter weight address configuration method for resource
constrained end-nodes such as embedded ones. So perhaps it could be
worth
On 5/12/2011 3:22 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Mark Smith wrote:
I think it would be reasonable to make DHCP a SHOULD, however
I've thought that one of the reasons SLAAC exists is to provide
simpler and lighter weight address configuration method for resource
constrained end-nodes such as
Ole Troan otr...@employees.org writes:
That is, a CPE router with multiple LAN interfaces is not allowed to
advertise itself as a default router (when it loses internet
connectivity), when that is arguably a fine thing for it to do.
I have to wonder whether RFC 6204 has gotten this
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, 11 May 2011 17:12:55 -0400
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Ole Troan otr...@employees.org writes:
That is, a CPE router with multiple LAN interfaces is not allowed to
advertise itself as a default router (when it loses internet
connectivity), when that is
Thomas,
Can someone explain to me the rationale for mandating 4191 in 6204?
What was the scenario that was envisioned that necessitates 4191?
it was the only way we found to keep support for ULA prefixes. the
scenario is if you have a home CPE with ULA enabled, but no upstream
IPv6
At Fri, 06 May 2011 13:48:19 -0400,
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what to do here. RFC 4191 is not widely
implemented, AFAIK. It's in Windows Vista (and onwards) and also
Linux. Not sure where else (I'm guessing not on Macs?)
(I'm not sure if the following
Thomas,
My personal observation, if it's implemented in Windows Vista WIn7, Linux,
BSD, (and probably Macs), then this sounds like widely implemented. This plus
Ole's use scenario, leads me to think it should be a SHOULD.
Bob
On May 9, 2011, at 12:58 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
At
My personal observation, if it's implemented in Windows Vista
WIn7, Linux, BSD, (and probably Macs), then this sounds like widely
implemented. This plus Ole's use scenario, leads me to think it
should be a SHOULD.
I could probably go with a SHOULD.
But, I wonder if we are living in the
Thomas,
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
My personal observation, if it's implemented in Windows Vista
WIn7, Linux, BSD, (and probably Macs), then this sounds like widely
implemented. This plus Ole's use scenario, leads me to think it
should be a SHOULD.
I could probably
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other electronic
devices?
When they start implementing IPv6 at all...
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Can someone explain to me the rationale for mandating 4191 in 6204?
What was the scenario that was envisioned that necessitates 4191?
it was the only way we found to keep support for ULA prefixes. the
scenario is if you have a home CPE with ULA enabled, but no upstream
IPv6 connectivity.
On May 9, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other
electronic devices?
When they start implementing IPv6 at all...
iOS and Symbian appear to do IPv6 pretty well. I think
On May 9, 2011 6:26 PM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other
electronic devices?
When they start implementing IPv6 at
On May 9, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other
electronic devices?
When they start implementing IPv6 at all...
iOS and Symbian appear to do IPv6 pretty well. I think
On Mon, 9 May 2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
iOS and Symbian appear to do IPv6 pretty well. I think iOS is ahead of
MacOS as it get's updated more often. Not sure about Android, Win7
phone, and the others.
Android 2.3.4 actually has GUI options to configure IPv6 APN, but we have
yet to find a
Hi Ole.
Thanks for the review!
I'm on the fence with regards to this document. if this document is
meant to be the RFC1122/1812 document for IPv6, I think we are too
early in the deployment of IPv6 to have gathered enough experience
with what works and what doesn't. as a profile of an IPv6
Thomas,
Thanks for the review!
I'm on the fence with regards to this document. if this document is
meant to be the RFC1122/1812 document for IPv6, I think we are too
early in the deployment of IPv6 to have gathered enough experience
with what works and what doesn't. as a profile of an
Thomas,
One small comment and one small nit, inline:
* 5.9.4 Default Address Selection
As RFC3484 generates IPv6 brokenness. I think we should change
this reference to RFC3484bis.
Can't do that. That would delay publication of the RFC.
BTW, you could make the same arguement w.r.t.
I'm on the fence with regards to this document. if this document is meant to be
the RFC1122/1812 document for IPv6,
I think we are too early in the deployment of IPv6 to have gathered enough
experience with what works and what doesn't.
as a profile of an IPv6 node though, it isn't too far off.
: Short 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-09.txt
Ole,
On May 5, 2011, at 6:49 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
I'm on the fence with regards to this document. if this document is
meant to be the RFC1122/1812 document for IPv6, I think we are too early in
the deployment of IPv6 to have
29 matches
Mail list logo
