Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> On 13 nov 2007, at 13:46, James Carlson wrote:
> works. (Such as the shim6 REAP protocol is designed to do although
> REAP doesn't know about routes.) So it should clearly be possible to
> send packets that don't conform to the source address / route
> alignment
On 13 nov 2007, at 13:46, James Carlson wrote:
Matter of fact, it seems to address something that also occurs with
IPv4, with multihomed hosts. And that apparently, some OSs screw up
royally.
I don't agree that those OSes "screw up royally." They are, in fact,
doing what their users *tell* t
Manfredi, Albert E writes:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: James Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > I don't agree that those OSes "screw up royally." They are, in fact,
> > doing what their users *tell* them to do.
> >
> > If an application binds the source address on Subnet B and
> -Original Message-
> From: James Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I don't agree that those OSes "screw up royally." They are, in fact,
> doing what their users *tell* them to do.
>
> If an application binds the source address on Subnet B and then sends
> a packet with a destination
Manfredi, Albert E writes:
> Matter of fact, it seems to address something that also occurs with
> IPv4, with multihomed hosts. And that apparently, some OSs screw up
> royally. Which is, if a multi-homed IPv4 host, connected to two
> different IP subnets, transmits an IP packet over Subnet A, it o
Hi Albert,
El 12/11/2007, a las 19:28, Manfredi, Albert E escribió:
I found nothing objectionable at all in the draft.
Matter of fact, it seems to address something that also occurs with
IPv4, with multihomed hosts. And that apparently, some OSs screw up
royally. Which is, if a multi-homed IP
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Havard Eidnes wrote:
Instead, my inclination would be to "solve" this problem in a
much simpler manner, simply by declaring it a configuration
error. A site which receives prefixes from more than a single
provider is clearly multihomed, and needs to have its providers
make a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Havard Eidnes wrote:
Instead, my inclination would be to "solve" this problem in a much
simpler manner, simply by declaring it a configuration error. A
site which receives prefixes from more than a single provider i
> -Original Message-
> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2007 8:40 AM
> To: marcelo bagnulo braun
> Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List
> Subject: Re:
> draft-baker-6man-multiprefix-default-route-00.txt is a newdraft
>
> On Nov 12,
Hi Havard,
El 12/11/2007, a las 17:27, Havard Eidnes escribió:
AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address
based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix
site, is that correct?
I don't like the term, because I first do a destination lookup and
only look up t
> > AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address
> > based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix
> > site, is that correct?
>
> I don't like the term, because I first do a destination lookup and
> only look up the source address in certain cases. Kind of l
Hi Fred,
El 12/11/2007, a las 14:39, Fred Baker escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:27 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address
based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 12, 2007, at 12:27 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address
based routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix
site, is that correct?
I don't like the term, because I fi
Hi Fred,
AFAIU, you are essentially proposing to perform source address based
routing by the hosts and by the routers in a multiprefix site, is
that correct?
Regards, marcelo
El 08/11/2007, a las 18:15, Fred Baker escribió:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
This is somethin
14 matches
Mail list logo
