f.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Tatuya,
>
> If it's too late, it's fine. On a different note, did you catch the
> fact from Vlad who wanted "should" changed to "SHOULD" in a paragraph
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Tatuya,
>
> If it's too late, it's fine. On a different note, did you catch the
> fact from Vlad who wanted "should" changed to "SHOULD" in a paragraph
> on page 18 of 2462bis? Further, we are also adding that a "should not"
> in the same paragraph be changed to "
ant & Wes
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 1:09 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Vlad Yasevich; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
At Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:22:16 -0400,
"H
At Mon, 9 Jul 2007 11:22:16 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tatuya, please note another proposed change by Vlad to 2462bis and also
> Vlad agrees that a change regarding skipping DAD should be made to
> 2462bis as per this statement from Vlad: "I would agree to adding
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
>
> IMO this is already fairly well spelled out in 2461bis. There was talk
> earlier on the list of adding something along the list of:
> This document RECOMMENDS that implementations use default values
> specified
> here.
>
> Since we are working on how t
skipping DAD is not recommended."
-Original Message-
From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 10:45 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
Hi Hemnat
Hemant Singh (shemant) wr
Hi Hemnat
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> We also told the modem vendor their behavior is compliant with ND
> RFC but since bandwidth is limited in a broadband deployment in the
> upsteam direction (modem to the aggregation router), having each modem
> issue 9 DAD's before the modem got online wa
Vlad,
Please see in line below with "".
-Original Message-
From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 3:33 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
Hi Hemant
Hemant Sing
Hi Hemant
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Vlad,
>
>
> I believe that you are reading too much into section 3.1. That section
> simply does a comparison to IPv4. It does not mandate anything and
> doesn't not specify any specific beavhior. That is saved for later.
>
> Totally agree with you.
Vlad,
Thanks very much for the review. Please see our responses in line below
against "".
-Original Message-
From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:39 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to defa
-Original Message-
From: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 2:21 PM
To: 'Vlad Yasevich'
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: RE: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
Vlad,
Thanks very much for the review. Please see our responses in line bel
On Friday 06 July 2007 04:25, JINMEI Tatuya /
wrote:
> At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:49:21 -0400,
>
> "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have you tested BSD by sending it an RA with no
> > PIO and M and O bits set so that BSD initiates
> > DHCPv6 ? Once BSD host is online with D
At Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:49:21 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you tested BSD by sending it an RA with no PIO and M and O bits
> set so that BSD initiates DHCPv6 ? Once BSD host is online with DHCPv6
> completed, issue a ping from BSD machine to another IPv6 machine
Hi Hemant
Here is my review of your draft. Comments are inside the
blocks.
-vlad
1. Introduction
IPv6 host data forwarding and address resolution is complex. For
example, RFC 2461 [ND] (section 3.1) implies that if the RA received
by the host does not advertise any prefix, then
Yasevich; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
At Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:56:32 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this regard, bullets 2 and 3 in Section 2 of our I-D show the issue
> hosts have when hosts in
At Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:56:32 -0400,
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In this regard, bullets 2 and 3 in Section 2 of our I-D show the issue
> hosts have when hosts incorrectly always add a directly connected route
> to the /64 prefix from an address assigned to an interface, ev
Markku,
Please see in line below against "".
-Original Message-
From: Markku Savela [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:43 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
> Well, this is exactly the prob
Hi Vlad,
Please see in line below against "".
-Original Message-
From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:42 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Ole Troan (otroan); Wes Beebee (wbeebee); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to defa
> Well, this is exactly the problem with host implementations we are
> concerned with. The prefix list is being populated with a prefix when
> the list should not be populated.
As an implementor IPv6 stack, I say that I had no problem
understanding the L & A bits in prefix announcements.
Just
Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Ole,
>
> Let's talk specifics, not generics. Of course, we know about section 5.2
> of 2461bis.
>
> Snipped is following text from Introduction section of our I-D as to
> what we think about section 5.2 of 2461bis:
>
>Sections 5.2 and 7.2.2 imply that the host
ve been written
more clearly.
- Hemant & Wes
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan (otroan)
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 10:27 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Vlad Yasevich; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
> Let
> Let's talk specifics, not generics. Of course, we know about section 5.2
> of 2461bis.
>
> Snipped is following text from Introduction section of our I-D as to
> what we think about section 5.2 of 2461bis:
>
>Sections 5.2 and 7.2.2 imply that the host performs
>address resolution before t
cy missed this behavior.
"5.2. Conceptual Sending Algorithm" explains how a host should behave
in this case.
/ot
> -Original Message-
> From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:38 AM
> To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
> Cc: ipv6@ietf
orithm" explains how a host should behave
in this case.
/ot
> -Original Message-
> From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:38 AM
> To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router
---
From: Vlad Yasevich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2007 11:38 AM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
> Section 3.1 of RFC 2461 describes intended behavior when a host
> recei
Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote:
Section 3.1 of RFC 2461 describes intended behavior when a host
receives an RA without an advertised prefix:
"Multiple prefixes can be associated with the same link. By
default, hosts learn all on-link prefixes from Router
Advertisements. However,
ways can one learn about on-link prefixes.
Thanks.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2007 9:38 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Sending traffic to default router when RA has no PIO
Section 3.1 of RFC 2461 describes intended behavior when a host
Section 3.1 of RFC 2461 describes intended behavior when a host
receives an RA without an advertised prefix:
"Multiple prefixes can be associated with the same link. By
default, hosts learn all on-link prefixes from Router
Advertisements. However, routers may be configured to o
28 matches
Mail list logo
