> On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:40:52 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The attached below is a issue list to make necessary updates on
> RFC2462 (Stateless Address Autoconfiguration).
I've slightly revised the list mainly based on comments received so
far. (Some URLs do not s
> > RFC 2461 says
>
> > Before a host sends an initial solicitation, it SHOULD delay the
> > transmission for a random amount of time between 0 and
> > MAX_RTR_SOLICITATION_DELAY.
>
> > RFC 2462 says
>
> > If the Neighbor Solicitation is the first message to be
> sent from an
>
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:24:08 +0900,
> Soohong Daniel Park <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I agreed with your mention and this issue is work in progress
> at the DNA BOF. A second BOF will be scheduled during
> this meeting.
> For more reference, please look into this draft.
> http://www.ie
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:11:55 -0700,
> Vijay Devarapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> here is another issue. it involves both 2461 and 2462.
> RFC 2461 says
> Before a host sends an initial solicitation, it SHOULD delay the
> transmission for a random amount of time between 0 an
Dear JINMEI
It seems to me that the following issue needs further clarification.
- Semantics about the L=0 and A=1 case
by Fred Templin, Feb 2003
I think the prefix of L=0 and A=1 may cause an undetected address duplication.
Because the currend DAD scheme uses NS/ NA exchange, which can't
there if I am alive at that time.
Respectfully,
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JinHyeock Choi
> Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: A list of issues for RFC2462 u
Dear Jim
Thanks for your detailed comments.
I may not be clear enough. This I-D assumes the scenario of a host moving from one
link
to another. In many cases, the term 'a host/node' is actually 'an MN'.
Kindly find my in line comments.
> Comments on this draft. I am unclear but it may be
Dear Vijay
Thanks for bring this up.
Vijay Devarapalli wrote
> hi,
>
> here is another issue. it involves both 2461 and 2462.
>
> RFC 2461 says
>
> Before a host sends an initial solicitation, it SHOULD delay the
> transmission for a random amount of time between 0 and
> MAX_RTR_SOLICITA
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Mip6] Re: A list of issues for RFC2462 update
>
>
> hi,
>
> here is another issue. it involves both 2461 and 2462.
>
> RFC 2461 says
>
> Before a host sends an initial solicitation, it SHOULD delay the
> tra
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: A list of issues for RFC2462 update
>
>
> hi,
>
> here is another issue. it involves both 2461 and 2462.
>
> RFC 2461 says
>
> Before a host sends an initial solicitation, it SHOULD delay t
hi,
here is another issue. it involves both 2461 and 2462.
RFC 2461 says
Before a host sends an initial solicitation, it SHOULD delay the
transmission for a random amount of time between 0 and
MAX_RTR_SOLICITATION_DELAY.
RFC 2462 says
If the Neighbor Solicitation is the first messag
Hello,
The attached below is a issue list to make necessary updates on
RFC2462 (Stateless Address Autoconfiguration).
To make this list, I've grepped the ipngwg/ipv6 ML archives from
Jan. 1998 with the keywords "2462" and "stateless," and picked up
issues that seem to be related to this update.
Hello,
(Sorry for the cross-posting. This is because many people who are not
in the ipv6 list may want to join the discussion. I'll restrict my
further posting to the ipv6 list in order to avoid unnecessary noise.)
As asked by the IPv6 wg co-chairs, I'm going to update the "IPv6
Stateless Addre
13 matches
Mail list logo
