Hi Hesham,
- Original Message -
From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:35 pm
Subject: RE: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr but w/o SLLAO
> Hi Tatuya,
>
> I'm not sure what was said in the meeting but at least my inten
TED]
(B > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 3:13 PM
(B > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B > Cc: Soliman, Hesham; ipv6@ietf.org
(B > Subject: Re: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr but w/o SLLAO
(B >
(B >
(B > >>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:26:26 +1100,
> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Okay, so this is what was referred to in the meeting today:
> How about a paragraph (maybe somewhere else) saying:
> "... It is possible that a host may receive a solicitation or a router
> advertisement
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "JINMEI Tatuya / "
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Mark Doll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Roland Bless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 5:14 AM
Subject: RE: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr but w/o SLLAO
Greg,
Hesham
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Daley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 6:27 PM
> To: JINMEI Tatuya /
> Cc: Christian Vogt; Soliman, Hesham; Mark Doll; Roland Bless;
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with
Hi,
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:27:02 +1100,
> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It has been a bit confusing with crossing e-mails and
> timezone differences.
Sorry, I actually noticed the possible confusion when I was writing
the messages, but I simply let it go..
> I think that the
Hi Jinmei.
[...] If there is no existing Neighbor Cache entry
for the solicitation's sender and a Source Link-Layer Address option
was present in the solicitation, the router creates a new Neighbor
Cache entry, installs the link-layer address and sets its reachability
state to STALE
Hi Jinmei,
JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:06:45 +0100,
Christian Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
...to this...
[...] If there is no existing Neighbor Cache entry
for the solicitation's sender and a Source Link-Layer Address option
was present in the solicitatio
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:06:45 +0100,
> Christian Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> ...to this...
>> [...] If there is no existing Neighbor Cache entry
>> for the solicitation's sender and a Source Link-Layer Address option
>> was present in the solicitation, the router cr
Hi Christian,
Christian Vogt wrote:
Hi Hesham,
hope this is not too late.
Not sure but the text may suggest to create NC state even if the RS did
not contain a SLLAO. In this case, it's actually not necessary to
create NC state, especially if the router chooses to respond with a
multicast RA.
Hi Jinmei, Greg, Hesham.
JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
Greg Daley said:
It has been a bit confusing with crossing e-mails and timezone
differences.
Sorry, I actually noticed the possible confusion when I was writing
the messages, but I simply let it go..
Actually, the guy who has been messung things up the
Hi Jinmei and Christian,
It has been a bit confusing with crossing e-mails and
timezone differences.
I think that there's agreement for clarification.
I think that people agree what needs to be clarified.
I'm not sure if it's decided where to put the clarification
(but I don't care myself, so long
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 16:26:26 +1100,
> Greg Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So if this is the case, we need to describe messages which request a
> response or change configuration state without having LLAOs.
> How about a paragraph (maybe somewhere else) saying:
> "... It is possible
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:18:24 +0100,
> Christian Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Ok, your point is the order implied in the text I suggested. I actually
> didn't mean to imply this. But yes, the text could potentially be
> misinterpreted. So maybe you whish to reduce it to the foll
Hi Greg.
- It performs address resolution on the solicitation's sender,
creates a new Neighbor Cache entry, installs the link-layer
address, sets its reachability state to STALE as specified in
Section 7.3.3, and responds with a unicast Router Advertisement
directed to the solicitation's sender.
I'
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 18:23:12 -0500,
> "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The text now looks like this:
> Router Solicitations in which the Source Address is the unspecified
> address MUST NOT update the router's Neighbor Cache; solicitations
> with a proper source address up
age- From: Greg Daley
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 20,
2005 6:13 PM To: Christian Vogt Cc: Soliman, Hesham; ipv6@ietf.org;
Mark Doll; Roland Bless Subject: Re: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr
but w/o SLLAO
Hi Christian and Hesham,
I think people are asymptoting to the same poi
ok thanks.
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Daley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 6:53 PM
> To: Soliman, Hesham
> Cc: Christian Vogt; ipv6@ietf.org; Mark Doll; Roland Bless
> Subject: Re: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with src
at will reflect today's
default preference order.
Greg
Hesham
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Daley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 6:13 PM
> To: Christian Vogt
> Cc: Soliman, Hesham; ipv6@ietf.org; Mark Doll; Roland Bless
> Subject:
Cc: Soliman, Hesham; ipv6@ietf.org; Mark Doll; Roland Bless
> Subject: Re: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr but w/o SLLAO
>
>
> Hi Christian and Hesham,
>
> I think people are asymptoting to the
> same point.
>
> Are we supposed to be suggesting text though?
>
&
Hi Christian and Hesham,
I think people are asymptoting to the
same point.
Are we supposed to be suggesting text though?
Christian Vogt wrote:
Hi Hesham.
> [...]
> I guess this is why FreeBSD introduces a new state, NOSTATE. It does
> not do immediate address resolution on an entry in this stat
Hi Hesham.
> [...]
> I guess this is why FreeBSD introduces a new state, NOSTATE. It does
> not do immediate address resolution on an entry in this state. It
> doesn't need to, because Rtadvd (on FreeBSD) sends multicast
> RA's in all
> cases except for ISATAP interfaces.
=> Right, I was
AIL PROTECTED]; Soliman, Hesham
> Cc: Mark Doll; Roland Bless; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr but w/o SLLAO
>
>
> Hi Hesham, Greg.
>
> > Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> >> Christian, Thanks for the detailed description. I think Nick
> Greg Daley wrote:
> > Putting things in STALE doesn't work unless there's a link-layer
> > address known ( and there's none in the received RS).
>
> Greg is correct. When a node has a packet for a neighbor
> for which the
> NC entry is STALE, it does send the packet (trial and
> er
Hi Hesham, Greg.
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
Christian, Thanks for the detailed description. I think Nick
brought this up some time ago too. My suggestion is that upon
reception of an RS with no SLLAO the router checks if an entry
already exists, if none exists then it creates one and puts it in
STALE.
Hi Hesham,
- Original Message -
From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, February 19, 2005 2:21 pm
Subject: RE: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr but w/o SLLAO
> Hi Greg,
>
> I was definitely assuming that address resolution will
> take
y [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:19 PM
> To: Soliman, Hesham
> Cc: Christian Vogt; ipv6@ietf.org; Mark Doll; Roland Bless
> Subject: Re: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr but w/o SLLAO
>
>
> Hi Hesham,
>
> Soliman, Hesham wrote
Hi Hesham,
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
Christian,
Thanks for the detailed description. I think Nick brought this up
some time ago too.
My suggestion is that upon reception of an RS with no SLLAO the
router checks if an entry already exists, if none exists then it
creates one and puts it in STALE. I
TECTED]
> Behalf Of
> Christian Vogt
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:17 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Cc: Mark Doll; Roland Bless
> Subject: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr but w/o SLLAO
>
>
> Hi everybody.
>
> I have one question regarding IPv6 Neigh
Hi everybody.
I have one question regarding IPv6 Neighbor Discovery: What happens
when a router receives a RS with a valid (possibly tentative) source
address, but no SLLAO is included?
This can happen, for instance, with ODAD, where a host with a tentative
address may want to solicit a RA wit
30 matches
Mail list logo
