Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 4:39 AM
To: James Carlson
Cc: Vlad Yasevich; ipv6@ietf.org; Suresh Krishnan
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
At Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:04:39 -0400,
James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree a bit with this resolution.
mant
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 12:48 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: James Carlson; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:03:01 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (sh
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 12:03:01 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The gist of your new paragraph is fine by me. However, you have un-fixed
> what I clearly defined in the past for behavior. The match statement has
> to apply to tentative address as well as an assigned addre
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 writes:
> (Intentionally separating the thread since this is irrelevant to the
> main focus of completing 2462bis)
Agreed; and changed the subject line as well.
> At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:43:34 -0400,
> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > On the other hand, I'd po
olve the destination IPv6 address that will result in the bad
address to be replaced.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:18 AM
To: James Carlson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in
(Intentionally separating the thread since this is irrelevant to the
main focus of completing 2462bis)
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:43:34 -0400,
James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the other hand, I'd point out the same argument could apply to the
> > "two-hour" rule adopted in RFC2462 and
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 writes:
> At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:43:34 -0400,
> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How should an implementor actually take care here? Are you perhaps
> > referring to the possibility of endless NA battles between a pair of
> > misconfigured systems? Or something els
At Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:43:34 -0400,
James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >2. If the target address matches a unicast address assigned to the
> >receiving interface, it would possibly indicate that the
> >address is a duplicate but it has not been detected by the
> >
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 writes:
> At Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:04:39 -0400,
> James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a result, what I've done in the Solaris implementation is to
> > 'defend' the address once -- by sending out my own advertisement in
> > reply to the received one -- but setting a fla
At Mon, 9 Jul 2007 16:04:39 -0400,
James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I disagree a bit with this resolution. These sorts of undetected
> duplicate addresses do happen in practice, due to network partition/
> repair and the effect of things like Spanning Tree's default port
> blocking.
>
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 writes:
> I also agree that it is overkilling to require the receiving host to
> stop using the seemingly duplicate address. We know DAD is not 100%
> reliable, so the best thing to do for such undetected duplicates would
> be to leave a warning/log message and let the adminis
At Sat, 07 Jul 2007 03:09:23 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tend to agree (I also thought this as an option myself). Thanks for
> the suggestion.
I've updated the AUTH48 version of rfc2462bis with this fix. Other
(major) changes since the latest version of I-D (rfc2462bis-0
At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 13:00:10 -0400,
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Though putting this into a list (1., 2., 3.) would likely make it
> much more readable and parseable.
> > On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an
> > interface, node behavior depends on
ssage. Processing anycast with 2461bis
sounds fine.
Thanks.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 12:39 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Vlad Yasevich; Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
>
> On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an
> interface, node behavior depends on whether the target address is
> tentative or matches a unicast or anycast address assigned to the
> interface. If the target address is tentative, the t
At Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:16:01 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for agreeing with our suggestion to not silently discard the
> advertisement. The new paragraph from you is still not complete
> because you have missed the part when a match of target address is
> not
y, July 06, 2007 8:44 AM
To: JINMEI Tatuya /
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> In conclusion I'd like to propose to change the paragraph of Section
> 5.4.4 from:
>
>
JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> In conclusion I'd like to propose to change the paragraph of
> Section 5.4.4 from:
>
> On receipt of a valid Neighbor Advertisement message on an interface,
> node behavior depends on whether the target address is tentative or
> matches a unicast or anyca
At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 18:18:20 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think Tatuya first leaned towards the silent discard behavior because
> he wanted text in 2462bis to match text in first para of section 7.2.5
> of 2461bis. However, I see that as matching apples with orange
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; ipv6@ietf.org; JINMEI Tatuya /
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Suresh,
>
> Yes, sorry, I had a typo wrt 2461 vs 2462. Thanks so much for
> providing the para. Now I have a separ
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Suresh,
>
> Yes, sorry, I had a typo wrt 2461 vs 2462. Thanks so much for providing
> the para. Now I have a separate question to you folks.
>
> What IPv6 network has an interface receiving an NA where the target
> address in the NA matched an assigned address on t
2007 2:06 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / ; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
Hi Hemant,
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Sorry, if I missed the paragraph Tatuya wanted to add. As I said
> before, could I please see the new para for sec
x27;
Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / ; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
Suresh,
Yes, sorry, I had a typo wrt 2461 vs 2462. Thanks so much for providing
the para. Now I have a separate question to you folks.
What IPv6 network has an interface receiving an NA where the ta
Hi Hemant,
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
Sorry, if I missed the paragraph Tatuya wanted to add. As I said before,
could I please see the new para for section 5.4.4 of 2461bis and I will
The edit he was proposing was for 2462bis not 2461bis. The old para in
section 5.4.4
On receipt of a v
shnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 12:57 PM
To: JINMEI Tatuya /
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
Hi Jinmei,
I agree with your proposed change. Just referring to RFC4861 is not
clear enough. You can a
Hi Jinmei,
I agree with your proposed change. Just referring to RFC4861 is not
clear enough. You can arrive at the same conclusion by pointing to
RFC4861, but the reasoning is a bit more circular. Since there is no
text with the EXACT semantic in RFC4861, I prefer your suggested text.
Cheers
, 2007 12:05 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:06:26 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having taken care of an NA target address that happens to be any
> a
At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:06:26 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having taken care of an NA target address that happens to be any address
> assigned to the receiving interface, now we are left with only a target
> address that is in ND cache of the receiving interface. Once
emant
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 10:48 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Revisit: one remaining corner case in DAD
At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:24:21 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL
At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:24:21 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the word solicitation is replaced by advertisement in section 5.4.4,
> we are fine. I don't like the too much wordiness of section 5.4.4. So I
> have prepared a paragraph for this section having made the te
ribed above MUST NOT be assigned to an interface
and then node SHOULD log a system management error.
Thanks.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 4:16 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Revisit: one remaining corner case i
I'm now completing 2462bis (which is now in the AUTH48 state)
addressing post IESG-approval issues. The remaining issues are
basically trivial, but I found one unresolved issue in the ML archive
that may be substantial.
I've read the issue description again, and would like to propose the
simplest
32 matches
Mail list logo
