On Aug 23, 2007, at 5:20 AM, Mark Smith wrote:
I don't like doing that sort of thing, but I like that both the DHCP
server and hosts are robust enough to handle it gracefully when I
do. A
few extra packets seems to me to be a relatively small price to pay
for
robustness and resilience.
I'm
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:52:49 -0400
James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> > On 20-aug-2007, at 15:02, James Carlson wrote:
> > > To me, that sounds like high cost with essentially no benefit. What
> > > am I missing?
> This means that the DHCP server is perfect
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 10:07:53PM +0900, Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
> i wonder how many of those who are voicing opinion here are
> actually using IPv6 in a daily basis.
ISC is native IPv6, no tunnels (except to employees' homes), dual
stack.
We are, proverbially, "soaking in it
--Original Message-
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:26 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Markku Savela; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Rethinking autoconfig, was Re: prefix length determination
for DHCPv6
On 21-aug-2007, at 13:02, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wro
I don't use or administer IPv6 on a daily basis. I do run an IPv6
testbed and experiment with various clients against the Cisco IOS and
CNR DHCP servers, so I have some experience with host configuration
using SLAAC, DHCP, SLAAC+DHCP...
- Ralph
On Aug 21, 2007, at Aug 21, 2007,9:07 AM, Jun
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino writes:
> i wonder how many of those who are voicing opinion here are
> actually using IPv6 in a daily basis.
I am. Does that help?
--
James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox
i wonder how many of those who are voicing opinion here are
actually using IPv6 in a daily basis.
itojun
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/l
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> On 20-aug-2007, at 15:02, James Carlson wrote:
> > To me, that sounds like high cost with essentially no benefit. What
> > am I missing?
>
> What it does and saves is very much dependent on the circumstances.
>
> Saving one or two packets here or there in and of it
On 21-aug-2007, at 13:02, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
And, there's always the case where the DHCP server has lost it memory
(i.e. disk) - in that case it would have no idea what was or was not
leased.
Yes, the server would have to tell nodes to do DAD until all the
leases from before the reb
bject: Re: Rethinking autoconfig,was Re: prefix length determination
for DHCPv6
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Avoiding DAD doesn't sound like a good goal to me. It means that
the
> > system _assumes_ that the rest of the world is perfect and never
> From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Avoiding DAD doesn't sound like a good goal to me. It means that the
> > system _assumes_ that the rest of the world is perfect and never has
> > any problems.
>
> Let me rephrase: making DAD more efficient. If there's a DHCP server
> prese
On 20-aug-2007, at 15:02, James Carlson wrote:
The first step is to add an option to the router solicitation message
that makes it possible to use this message as the start of a DHCP
exchange. This way, a host doesn't have to know whether it will
receive configuration through RAs or DHCP or both
Iljitsch van Beijnum writes:
> The first step is to add an option to the router solicitation message
> that makes it possible to use this message as the start of a DHCP
> exchange. This way, a host doesn't have to know whether it will
> receive configuration through RAs or DHCP or both, and t
On 17-aug-2007, at 22:09, james woodyatt wrote:
To stop unnecessary DHCP traffic. [...]
I think what we're seeing here is a vocal faction of the community
who believe that DHCP discovery multicasts are always necessary,
whether RA is present or not, and whether M=0 or M=1, despite the
te
14 matches
Mail list logo
