gt; - Bernie
>
> -Original Message-
> From: HYUN WOOK CHA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:41 PM
> To: Brian Haberman
> Cc: Ted Lemon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org;
Bernie
> Volz (volz)
> Subject: Re: Re: Request for Advic
: Ted Lemon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; Bernie
Volz (volz)
Subject: Re: Re: Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Hello, Brian.
As I presented last IETF 6MAN meeting, our draft aims to provide
automatic revocation of DHCPv6 clients in cas
g as current architecture(or situation) is supported, I still believe
that our draft has value to provide a right guidance on the usage of M/O flags
to implementors.
Joseph
--- Original Message ---
Sender : James Carlson<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date : 2008-10-08 21:06 (GMT+09:00)
Titl
(GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Joseph, to summarize, it sounds like you believe that the ability to
stop DHCP clients broadcasting on a link is a requirement. And you
therefore think that deprecating the M&O bits is not the
l Message-
From: HYUN WOOK CHA [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:41 PM
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: Ted Lemon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; Bernie
Volz (volz)
Subject: Re: Re: Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Hell
IL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 8:41 PM
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: Ted Lemon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ipv6@ietf.org; Bernie
Volz (volz)
Subject: Re: Re: Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Hello, Brian.
As I presented last IETF 6MAN meeting
We do not have any security methods and just consider
using the SEND.
Regards,
Joseph
--- Original Message ---
Sender : Brian Haberman<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date : 2008-10-08 04:20 (GMT+09:00)
Title : Re: Request for Advices on the draft "draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Jos
Request for Advices on the draft "draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Joseph, to summarize, it sounds like you believe that the ability to
stop DHCP clients broadcasting on a link is a requirement. And you
therefore think that deprecating the M&O bits is not the right
Joseph, to summarize, it sounds like you believe that the ability to
stop DHCP clients broadcasting on a link is a requirement. And you
therefore think that deprecating the M&O bits is not the right
answer. Is that correct?
---
Hello, Thomas and Ted.
Please see my inline comments.
On Sep 18, 2008, at 6:01 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
>> Perhaps this point might be a major conflict. As we both know,
>> consecutive DHCPv6 SOLICIT messages are sent exponentially
>> back-offed if no valid replies are received within timeouts
Thomas,
I would like to add a few comments as below.
>
> --- Original Message ---
> Sender : Thomas Narten<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date : 2008-09-18 22:01 (GMT+09:00)
> Title : Re: Request for Advices on the draft "draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
>
> HYU
HYUN WOOK CHA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > First of all, I would like to give a brief summary for the draft.
> >
> > > Existing specification (RFC2462) does not give a method on how to
> > > revoke DHCPv6 clients once they were invoked by the M or O flags of
> > > RA messages.
> >
> > Perso
CTED]
> Subject: Re: Request for Advices on the draft
> "draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
>
> HYUN WOOK CHA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello, Thomas Narten and 6MAN folks.
>
> > I made a presentation for our draft "draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-
HYUN WOOK CHA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello, Thomas Narten and 6MAN folks.
> I made a presentation for our draft "draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt" at
> the 6MAN session in Dublin IETF. This draft aims to clarify the
> handling of the M/O flags of IPv6 RA. Though I got several comments
> during
14 matches
Mail list logo
