Sorry for being too late response.
> 1) This document doesn't seem to take a stance what happens
> when/if the host
> has multiple routers (whether on the same or different
> interfaces), and some
> of them have O/M bits set and some others not. Would that lead to a
> set-unset-set-unset loop,
Hi Jinmei,
>
> I don't mind adding the appendix as long we just describe possible
> issues (if any) and do NOT try to provide workaround like combining
> router/parameters.
That looks fine, we will just describe the issues and leave the
implementation
details to the developers.
>
> JINMEI, Tat
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 10:46:22 +0530,
> Radhakrishnan Suryanarayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > An implementation might explore an implementation dependent trick like
>> > combining routers and parameters to mitigate the bad effect of the
>> > admin error. However, I'd really want to
Hi greg & Jinmei,
Please find the comments inline.
> > I'm afraid people may forget that it is administrator's responsibility
> > to ensure the consistency among RA parameters from multiple routers
> > in the same single link (see Section 5.6 of RFC2462 - while the RFC
> > does not explicitly sa
Hi Jinmei,
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:59:43 +0530,
Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
M/O flags indicate the avaialbility of the respective service, so if
a router advertises the M/O flags bits ON, I think we should OFF
them if and only if the same router advertis
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:59:43 +0530,
> Syam Madanapalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > M/O flags indicate the avaialbility of the respective service, so if
>> > a router advertises the M/O flags bits ON, I think we should OFF
>> > them if and only if the same router advertises again to O
Hi Fred,
Fred Templin wrote:
Greg Daley wrote:
For MTU, it's clear that you need to take the smallest
(most restrictive) value advertised. This is because
choice of a higher MTU is likely to have worse effects
than
I think this needs a bit of refinement. For multicast RAs (both unsolicited
and s
Hi Syam,
Syam Madanapalli wrote:
[cut]
Indeed it is similar.
When you have trusted routers with differing configurations,
you have to make a decision what configuration to undertake.
For MTU, it's clear that you need to take the smallest
(most restrictive) value advertised. This is because
choice
Greg Daley wrote:
For MTU, it's clear that you need to take the smallest
(most restrictive) value advertised. This is because
choice of a higher MTU is likely to have worse effects
than
I think this needs a bit of refinement. For multicast RAs (both unsolicited
and solicited), the MTU option giv
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Soohong Daniel
Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt
> Hi Syam,
>
> Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> &g
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt
> Hi Syam,
>
> Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: &qu
nt: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Syam Madanapalli wrote:
M/O flags indicate the avaialbility of the respective service, so if
a router advertises the M/O flags bits ON, I think we should OFF
them i
- Original Message -
From: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Syam Madanapalli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Soohong Daniel Park"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 2:
> Editorial suggestion: please switch to use XML2RFC. Pretty please!
As coauthor of this draft, I am so sorry to bother readers. It will be
done during our revision...:-)
> 1) This document doesn't seem to take a stance what happens
> when/if the host
> has multiple routers (whether on the sam
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Syam Madanapalli wrote:
> M/O flags indicate the avaialbility of the respective service, so if
> a router advertises the M/O flags bits ON, I think we should OFF
> them if and only if the same router advertises again to OFF. It is
> administartor problem if one advertises with
- Original Message -
From: )>
To: "Pekka Savola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Soohong Daniel Park" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt
>
Thanks for the comments.
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 15:40:00 +0300 (EEST),
> Pekka Savola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Editorial suggestion: please switch to use XML2RFC. Pretty please!
I tend to agree. At least I-D editors should use a tool that can
produce text that conforms to the I-D ni
Hi,
A could of quick comments on draft-daniel-ipv6-ra-mo-flags-00.txt.
Editorial suggestion: please switch to use XML2RFC. Pretty please!
Two bigger issues:
1) This document doesn't seem to take a stance what happens when/if the host
has multiple routers (whether on the same or diff
18 matches
Mail list logo
