At Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:06:21 -0400,
Ralph Droms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stig - you wrote At least as a sysadmin/user I would find it
confusing if the prefix length I configured would not be used for on-
link determination. I think it's more bad than good to try to
separate the two. I'm
Hi Markku,
Sorry for the delay. Please see in line below against hs.
-Original Message-
From: Markku Savela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:39 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fred Baker (fred)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00
On Jun 28, 2007, at Jun 28, 2007,1:14 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
wrote:
At Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:27:37 -0400,
Ralph Droms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One bug that may or may not be common is to make assumptions about
the prefixes on a link based on addresses assigned to an interface.
I can
Please see in line below with hs
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 10:26 AM
To: JINMEI Tatuya /
Cc: IETF Mailing List IPv6; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
, June 29, 2007 10:26 AM
To: JINMEI Tatuya /
Cc: IETF Mailing List IPv6; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Hemant Singh
(shemant)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with
urgent changessuggested to 2462bis-08
On Jun 28, 2007, at Jun 28, 2007,1:14 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神
明達哉
wrote
-
From: Stig Venaas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 11:54 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); JINMEI Tatuya / ; IETF Mailing List IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changessuggested to 2462bis-08
Hemant Singh
-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changessuggested to 2462bis-08
On Jun 28, 2007, at Jun 28, 2007,1:14 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
wrote:
At Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:27:37 -0400,
Ralph Droms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One bug that may or may not be common is to make assumptions about
-Original Message-
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 12:06 PM
To: Stig Venaas
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); JINMEI Tatuya / ; IETF Mailing List IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changessuggested to 2462bis-08
Hemant - does
One bug that may or may not be common is to make assumptions about
the prefixes on a link based on addresses assigned to an interface.
I can imagine (and I believe we've actually made a real sighting of
this scenario) that an IPv6 implementor might extrapolate IPv4
conventions and extract
At Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:27:37 -0400,
Ralph Droms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One bug that may or may not be common is to make assumptions about
the prefixes on a link based on addresses assigned to an interface.
I can imagine (and I believe we've actually made a real sighting of
this
(shemant)
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; Fred Baker (fred)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changessuggested to 2462bis-08
Tatuya,
OK, it's alright to say an accident, but this accident caused the
security problem because we still think
Why is solving the problems with a DAD change not a perfect solution ?
The problems are serious enough for deployed codebase to change. It's
not like we are asking to replace IPv6 hardware. It's a software change
for deployed code base. Anyhow, Tatuya has already said most hosts he
has tested
; Brian E Carpenter; Fred Baker (fred)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changessuggested to 2462bis-08
We originally wanted to make changes to 2462bis I-D, but since it's in
AUTH state, that may not be possible anymore.
If you want, we can let 2462bis I-D not make
13 matches
Mail list logo
