sted by valid RAs, rouge RAs can't stop DHCPv6.
- 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
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
client behavior in
>>> response
>>> to the receipt of M and O flags is unspecified."
>>>
>>> - Bernie
>>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
>>> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:31 AM
>>>
List Mailing; Brzozowski John
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Bernie - my suggested clarifications help the situation in that the
flags are currently underspecified (in fact, IMHO, confusingly
specific) relative to the previous conse
: [dhcwg] Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Bernie - my suggested clarifications help the situation in that the
flags are currently underspecified (in fact, IMHO, confusingly
specific) relative to the previous consensus about their definition.
Deprecating the
ssage-
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:31 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; DHC WG; IPV6 List
Mailing; Bernie Volz (volz); Brzozowski John
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Tho
)
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 9:31 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms); [EMAIL PROTECTED]; DHC WG; IPV6 List
Mailing; Bernie Volz (volz); Brzozowski John
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Request for Advices on the draft
"draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00.txt"
Thomas - you wrote:
> unless somethin
Thomas - you wrote:
unless something has
changed (and I have seen no indication of this), the WG should not
take on this topic or discuss it further because there is no consensus
to make any changes.
One part of the situation that may have changed - or, perhaps, wasn't
considered - is the c
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
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. Since
>> this always holds, I would like to ask you why M
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
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 my presentation, I could
not figure out what you
23 matches
Mail list logo
