Hi Marcelo,
- Original Message -
From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, August 13, 2005 0:50 am
Subject: Re: Solutions for distributing RFC 3484 address selection
policies
> Hi Greg,
>
> El 12/08/2005, a las 2:14, Greg Daley escribió:
> >
Hi Greg,
El 12/08/2005, a las 2:14, Greg Daley escribió:
Is this what people want to use the proposed option for, though?
Or are they just interested in providing an information service about
the advertised prefixes?
I guess that it also would make sense to provide label/preference
informati
Hi Greg,
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Daley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 8:15 PM
> To: Ralph Droms
> Cc: timothy enos; 'Stig Venaas'; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Solutions for distributing RFC 3484 address selection
> pol
Hi Ralph,
> -Original Message-
> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 10:04 AM
> To: timothy enos
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Stig Venaas'; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Solutions for distributing RFC 3484 address sele
Hi Ralph,
Ralph Droms wrote:
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 01:40 -0400, timothy enos wrote:
[...]
One thing is that in using DHCPv6, all DHCPv6 clients on the link will
get the same policy. Also, IMO it wouldn't always be bad for all hosts
on a link (DHCPv6 or otherwise) to get the same policy.
It'
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 01:40 -0400, timothy enos wrote:
> [...]
> One thing is that in using DHCPv6, all DHCPv6 clients on the link will
> get the same policy. Also, IMO it wouldn't always be bad for all hosts
> on a link (DHCPv6 or otherwise) to get the same policy.
It's not the case that all DHCP
Dear Greg,
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:27:56PM +1000, Greg Daley wrote:
> Dear Stig,
>
> Stig Venaas wrote:
> >So far two principal solutions have been suggested, RAs and DHCP. If
> >people want to work on solutions we could possibly look into both of
> >these.
> >
> >Some issues have already been
Hi Tim,
timothy enos wrote:
[cut]
It is worth noting, that in the DHC proposal, 24 bits of data:
(label, precedence, zone-index) are added which aren't present
in PIOs.
There's an unused 32 octet field available (and another 5 unused
bits for flags) in each PIO, which are currently unused.
A
Hi Greg/Stig,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of
> Greg Daley
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 11:28 PM
> To: Stig Venaas
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Solutions for distributing RFC 3484 address selection
>
Hi Bernie.
Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
It's unclear at the moment how a DHCP server on one link is able
to describe how to use addresses available on another interface
or link.
Why would you then assume that an RA on one link could do any more? It
too would be restricted to providing policies J
ig Venaas
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Solutions for distributing RFC 3484 address
> selection policies
>
> Dear Stig,
>
> Stig Venaas wrote:
> > So far two principal solutions have been suggested, RAs and DHCP. If
> > people want to work on solutions we could
Dear Stig,
Stig Venaas wrote:
So far two principal solutions have been suggested, RAs and DHCP. If
people want to work on solutions we could possibly look into both of
these.
Some issues have already been mentioned on this list. Another issue
which was brought up in dhc wg, is that the policy i
Stig,
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 09:42:03AM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> So far two principal solutions have been suggested, RAs and DHCP. If
> people want to work on solutions we could possibly look into both of
> these.
>
> Some issues have already been mentioned on this list. Another issue
> which
So far two principal solutions have been suggested, RAs and DHCP. If
people want to work on solutions we could possibly look into both of
these.
Some issues have already been mentioned on this list. Another issue
which was brought up in dhc wg, is that the policy is a host global
config, not per i
14 matches
Mail list logo
