On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Ole Troan wrote:
You said "There is no difference between a tunnel link and any other
link media I think."
That is the exact issue in my case for ND messages. If we just send a
packet tunneled, the TTL check for ND messages fails as we can send a
packet from multiple hops aw
forwarded off the link? If you agree that it stays on the link,
why is there a problem with doing ND?
Stig
Thanks again,
Vishwas
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 11:55 AM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: Stig Venaas; IPv6
Sub
the link? If you agree that it stays on the link,
why is there a problem with doing ND?
Stig
>
> Thanks again,
> Vishwas
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Ole Troan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 11:55 AM
> To: Vishwas Manral
&
ECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 11:55 AM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: Stig Venaas; IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05
Vishwas,
> You said "There is no difference between a tunnel link and any other
> link media I think."
>
> That is the exact issue in my case for ND mes
Vishwas,
> You said "There is no difference between a tunnel link and any other
> link media I think."
>
> That is the exact issue in my case for ND messages. If we just send a
> packet tunneled, the TTL check for ND messages fails as we can send a
> packet from multiple hops away by just adding
28, 2005 1:31 AM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:21:01AM -0800, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> While going through the draft, I noticed there is no talk of tunneled
ND
> message in the entire draft.
>
>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 02:21:01AM -0800, Vishwas Manral wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> While going through the draft, I noticed there is no talk of tunneled ND
> message in the entire draft.
>
>
>
> The draft states: -
>
>
>
>By setting the Hop Limit to 255, Neighbor Discovery is immune to
>
Thanks,
Vishwas
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:10 PM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral wrote:
By setting the Hop Limit to 255, Neighbor Discovery is immu
inside a tunneled
packet, unless it is explicitly so configured.
Thanks,
Vishwas
-Original Message-
From: Pekka Savola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 4:10 PM
To: Vishwas Manral
Cc: IPv6
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-ipv6-2461bis-05
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005, Vishwas Manral wrote:
By setting the Hop Limit to 255, Neighbor Discovery is immune to
off-link senders that accidentally or intentionally send ND messages.
However if we send a basic ND message in IP-in-IP tunneled packet and
send the packet across, we can easily send N
Hi,
While going through the draft, I noticed there is no talk of
tunneled ND message in the entire draft.
The draft states: -
By setting the Hop Limit to 255, Neighbor Discovery is immune to off-link senders that accidentally or intentionally send ND messages. However if we
Hi,
I think I found a small typo in the draft: -
asymmetric reachability
- a link where non-reflexive and/or non-transitive
reachability is part of normal operation. (Non-
reflexive reachability means packets from A reach B
but packets from B don't re
12 matches
Mail list logo
