Erik,
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Erik
Nordmark
Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 11:31 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Pekka Savola
Subject: Re: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.
Hemant Singh
Templin, Fred L wrote:
Some links rely on unicast RS/RA and not multicast. Wouldn't
unicast-only proxy ND avoid the looping issues you were
concerned with?
No.
If the network is misconfigured you can get loops. An example: we have
host A sending (even a unicast NS) to the L2 address for
, November 12, 2009 3:51 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wbeebee-6man-nd-proxy-std-00.txt
Do we already have implementations? What
-Original Message-
From: Laganier, Julien [mailto:juli...@qualcomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:31 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Pekka Savola
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; draft-ietf-csi-proxy-s...@tools.ietf.org;
csi-cha...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.
Hemant
...@tools.ietf.org;
csi-cha...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.
Hemant,
Right - I understand that some deployments do not require SEND security.
As a side note, draft-ietf-csi-proxy-send-01 has just entered WGLC in
the CSI WG, reviews by interested parties would
) ?
Thanks,
--julien
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
teemu.savolai...@nokia.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:35 AM
To: shem...@cisco.com; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.
I'm supporting
...@qualcomm.com
Subject: RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.
Date: 18th November 2009
Time: 9:58:36 pm
Hello Teemu,
A question for clarification about the 3GPP use-case you have in mind. Are you
thinking about a 3GPP User Equipment being allocated a /64 prefix on the 3GPP
link and acting
Of
Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:13 AM
To: Pekka Savola
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.
Yes. Cable access concentrators (also called a CMTS (Cable Modem
Termination System)) for ipv4 support an ARP Proxy. So it was natural
when
[mailto:pek...@netcore.fi]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:51 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: speaking of ND Proxy and NBMA etc.
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wbeebee-6man-nd-proxy-std-00.txt
Do we already have
I'm supporting this work and the goal, with the 3GPP (modem) use-case
particularly in my mind.
Thanks for working on this,
Teemu
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Hemant
Singh (shemant) [shem...@cisco.com]
Sent:
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-wbeebee-6man-nd-proxy-std-00.txt
Do we already have implementations? What are the implementation
experiences? Were all the features of the spec useful, or should
something be changed (added, removed,
11 matches
Mail list logo
