Le 22/10/2012 19:06, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
Le 22/10/2012 02:54, Mark Smith a écrit : [...]
off. My point was that there is a method available for a relay to
discover DHCPv6 servers without the configuration issues related
to only being able to use a specific GUA or ULA unicast address.
Delegation extensions to
ND draft-kaiser-nd-pd-00.txt
Le 20/10/2012 18:36, sth...@nethelp.no a écrit :
There is also the question of availability of DHCP software
on smaller platforms which have no SIM card. It may be
easier to do this with ND in smaller settings.
The obvious conclusion
Alexandru == Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com writes:
Alexandru But, consider that in V2V2I we may need not only Prefix
Alexandru Delegation but also route exchange at the same time (IV
Alexandru delegates a global prefix to LV, and IV and LV exchange
Alexandru
On Nov 3, 2012, at 19:25 , Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 03/11/2012 18:54, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
Hello Alex,
On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:41 , Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 25/10/2012 15:52, Michael Richardson a écrit :
ralph Why
On Nov 3, 2012, at 19:29 , Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 03/11/2012 19:05, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
Hello Alex,
On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:53 , Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 02/11/2012 20:59, Michael Richardson a écrit :
Alexandru
Le 05/11/2012 11:01, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
On Nov 3, 2012, at 19:25 , Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 03/11/2012 18:54, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
Hello Alex,
On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:41 , Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 25/10/2012 15:52,
Le 05/11/2012 11:12, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
On Nov 3, 2012, at 19:29 , Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 03/11/2012 19:05, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
Hello Alex,
On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:53 , Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 02/11/2012 20:59, Michael
Le 25/10/2012 15:52, Michael Richardson a écrit :
ralph Why wouldn't RPL be used for such networks? It has built-in
PD for ralph dynamic networks, if I understand it correctly, with
RA used at the ralph subnet level.
Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote: AP RA used
to exchange
Le 02/11/2012 20:59, Michael Richardson a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote: AP Well
yes, the prefix allocated to a vehicle when using NEMO is AP
actually DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation RFC6276. In that RFC the AP
presence of HA is mandatory.
AP But some times HA may not
Hello Alex,
On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:41 , Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 25/10/2012 15:52, Michael Richardson a écrit :
ralph Why wouldn't RPL be used for such networks? It has built-in
PD for ralph dynamic networks, if I understand it correctly, with
RA used at
Hello Alex,
On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:53 , Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 02/11/2012 20:59, Michael Richardson a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote: AP Well
yes, the prefix allocated to a vehicle when using NEMO is AP
actually DHCPv6 Prefix
Le 03/11/2012 18:54, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
Hello Alex,
On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:41 , Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 25/10/2012 15:52, Michael Richardson a écrit :
ralph Why wouldn't RPL be used for such networks? It has
built-in PD for ralph dynamic networks, if I
Le 03/11/2012 19:05, Romain KUNTZ a écrit :
Hello Alex,
On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:53 , Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 02/11/2012 20:59, Michael Richardson a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote: AP Well
yes, the prefix allocated to a vehicle
On 3/11/2012, at 2:29 PM, Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
(I am not sure this prohibition of advertising an expired prefix is
specified or coded, I just suppose it as natural).
Alex
It is specified, unfortunately current implementations often fail to behave as
Hello Thierry,
Le 27/10/2012 11:30, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
Many thanks to John for his post. Yes, what is the problem we are
trying to solve here ? With NEMO, there is no problem related to
changing IP addresses ? NEMO is the solution for that. The
in-vehicle router would still get a new CoA
Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
AP Well yes, the prefix allocated to a vehicle when using NEMO is
AP actually DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation RFC6276. In that RFC the
AP presence of HA is mandatory.
AP But some times HA may not be available, e.g. in remote areas
[re-sending to ipv6@ietf.org as I am not sure about 6...@ietf.org]
Hello Thierry,
Le 27/10/2012 11:30, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
Many thanks to John for his post. Yes, what is the problem we are
trying to solve here ? With NEMO, there is no problem related to
changing IP addresses ? NEMO is the
Le 25/10/2012 20:25, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
[...]
I checked the document and it misses, I think, something important.
The first and most naïve request of a prefix by a Requesting Router
should have all bits zero and maybe the prefix length 0, or around
64.
Would this be ok?
Wouldn't the
ralph Why wouldn't RPL be used for such networks? It has built-in PD for
ralph dynamic networks, if I understand it correctly, with RA used at the
ralph subnet level.
Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
AP RA used to exchange routes - if this is what you mean,
Le 24/10/2012 19:04, STARK, BARBARA H a écrit :
If an LV never ever wanted to get a PD from anything other than an
IV, and an IV could only ever expect to delegate to a LV, then I see
no problem.
I understand in that case there would be no problem use ND instead of
DHCP to realize PD.
On the
Le 25/10/2012 13:14, Michael Richardson a écrit :
Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
But with vehicles, one connects a vehicle here and gets a
prefix, then moves in that area and gets another prefix. At
that point, if the router obtaining a prefix wants to delegate
further to another
On 25/10/2012 17:03, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Hello Brian,
Thank you for the email. Please see below some comments.
Le 23/10/2012 14:19, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
I realised while reading this draft that I just don't understand
its operating model. It refers to the requesting router
Le 23/10/2012 14:05, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
On 20/10/2012 19:10, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: ..
But with vehicles, one connects a vehicle here and gets a prefix,
then moves in that area and gets another prefix. At that point,
if the router obtaining a prefix wants to delegate further to
Hi,
Le 24/10/2012 02:56, John Mann a écrit :
Hi,
On 23 October 2012 03:54, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 20/10/2012 23:51, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
Dear Alex,
Would you explain why the vehicle would need to
If an LV never ever wanted to get a PD from anything other than an IV, and an
IV could only ever expect to delegate to a LV, then I see no problem. On the
other hand, if these things do expect the same physical links to be used to
connect with other ecosystems (like home networks or hotspots)
On 20/10/2012 19:10, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
..
But with vehicles, one connects a vehicle here and gets a prefix, then
moves in that area and gets another prefix. At that point, if the
router obtaining a prefix wants to delegate further to another vehicle
needs to change the delegated
I realised while reading this draft that I just don't understand
its operating model. It refers to the requesting router supplying
Prefix Collection and Prefix Information to the delegating router:
When requesting prefixes a requesting router MUST add for each
requested prefix a Prefix
On Oct 23, 2012, at 2:05 PM 10/23/12, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
On 20/10/2012 19:10, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
..
But with vehicles, one connects a vehicle here and gets a prefix, then
moves in that area and gets another prefix. At that point, if the
router obtaining a prefix wants to
Hi,
On 23 October 2012 03:54, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.comwrote:
Le 20/10/2012 23:51, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
Dear Alex,
Would you explain why the vehicle would need to get a new prefix (and
thus I assume configure all the nodes in the vehicle) every time it
enters
Le 20/10/2012 22:08, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
But with vehicles, one connects a vehicle here and gets a prefix,
then moves in that area and gets another prefix. At that point, if
the router obtaining a prefix wants to delegate further to
Le 20/10/2012 23:51, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
Dear Alex,
Would you explain why the vehicle would need to get a new prefix (and
thus I assume configure all the nodes in the vehicle) every time it
enters a new area ?
Well, whenever MR of a vehicle changes its attachment point it would get
a
Le 21/10/2012 02:45, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
The obvious conclusion to this argument is that a *lot* of DHCP
functionality will be duplicated in ND. Is this where we want to
go?
I'm coming from the DHCP side of the argument. In my world DHCP is
needed because it gives you a single place to
Le 21/10/2012 23:45, Mark Smith a écrit :
- Original Message -
From: Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
To: sth...@nethelp.no
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: Announcing Prefix Delegation extensions to ND
draft-kaiser-nd-pd-00.txt
Le 22/10/2012 02:54, Mark Smith a écrit :
[...]
off. My point was that there is a method available for a relay to
discover DHCPv6 servers without the configuration issues related to
only being able to use a specific GUA or ULA unicast address.
Well, the use of multicast to identify the servers
Dear Alex,
Would you explain why the vehicle would need to get a new prefix (and
thus I assume configure all the nodes in the vehicle) every time it
enters a new area ?
Thierry
On 20/10/12 20:10, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 20/10/2012 18:42, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Sat, 20 Oct
- Original Message -
From: Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
To: sth...@nethelp.no
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 4:56 AM
Subject: Re: Announcing Prefix Delegation extensions to ND
draft-kaiser-nd-pd-00.txt
Le 20/10/2012 18:36, sth...@nethelp.no
On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 14:45 -0700, Mark Smith wrote:
Actually it can, as the destination address for the server the relay uses
can be the all-dhcp-serviers site-local (FF05:0:0:0:0:0:1:3) multicast
address.
I have yet to see this in the wild, and would be interested to hear if
anyone actually
- Original Message -
From: sth...@nethelp.no sth...@nethelp.no
To: alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012 3:36 AM
Subject: Re: Announcing Prefix Delegation extensions to ND
draft-kaiser-nd-pd-00.txt
There is also the question
Hi Karl,
- Original Message -
From: Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Cc:
Sent: Monday, 22 October 2012 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: Announcing Prefix Delegation extensions to ND
draft-kaiser-nd-pd-00.txt
On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 14:45 -0700, Mark Smith wrote:
Actually
On Sun, 2012-10-21 at 17:54 -0700, Mark Smith wrote:
network. Mitigation would need filters everywhere, just in case.
True, however you also have the same sort of vulnerability issues to rogue
DHCP servers.
Unicast queries go only to the correct servers. Rogues don't get a look
in - except on
Le 19/10/2012 10:08, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Comments about the idea in this draft? About the problem?
What is the rationale for duplicating the functionality in DHCPv6-PD
into ND? If code needs to be changed, why can't that code change
Le 19/10/2012 10:22, Philipp Kern a écrit :
Mikael,
am Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:08:39AM +0200 hast du folgendes
geschrieben:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Comments about the idea in this draft? About the problem?
What is the rationale for duplicating the functionality in
Le 19/10/2012 17:50, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
Hi Mikael,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson
swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Comments about the idea in this draft? About the problem?
What is the rationale for duplicating the
Le 19/10/2012 18:16, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
It is not just implementing that code in one node. DHCPv6-PD
requires Delegating Router on a DHCP server somewhere and then
Requesting Router on the edge router (there was a proposal to
implement it
There is also the question of availability of DHCP software on smaller
platforms which have no SIM card. It may be easier to do this with ND
in smaller settings.
The obvious conclusion to this argument is that a *lot* of DHCP
functionality will be duplicated in ND. Is this where we want to
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Right, parts of ND are handled in kernel in most OSes. But one key part
that would need to be modified is RA and that is userspace. In linux
that means mainly radvd, and curiously enough that lacks RS which is
mostly kernel.
Sending of RA is
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
One point that guided towards choosing ND over DHCP is topology. DHCP
topology can be relatively complex with Client/Relay/Server, whereas ND
is simpler one-on-one.
There is nothing saying DHCPv6-PD can't be done in a single device (the
router
Le 20/10/2012 18:36, sth...@nethelp.no a écrit :
There is also the question of availability of DHCP software on
smaller platforms which have no SIM card. It may be easier to do
this with ND in smaller settings.
The obvious conclusion to this argument is that a *lot* of DHCP
functionality will
Le 20/10/2012 18:36, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Right, parts of ND are handled in kernel in most OSes. But one
key part that would need to be modified is RA and that is
userspace. In linux that means mainly radvd, and curiously enough
that
Le 20/10/2012 18:42, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
One point that guided towards choosing ND over DHCP is topology.
DHCP topology can be relatively complex with Client/Relay/Server,
whereas ND is simpler one-on-one.
There is nothing saying
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
But with vehicles, one connects a vehicle here and gets a prefix, then
moves in that area and gets another prefix. At that point, if the
router obtaining a prefix wants to delegate further to another vehicle
needs to change the delegated prefix.
On 10/20/2012 9:36 AM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
There is also the question of availability of DHCP software on smaller
platforms which have no SIM card. It may be easier to do this with ND
in smaller settings.
The obvious conclusion to this argument is that a *lot* of DHCP
functionality
The obvious conclusion to this argument is that a *lot* of DHCP
functionality will be duplicated in ND. Is this where we want to go?
I'm coming from the DHCP side of the argument. In my world DHCP is
needed because it gives you a single place to handle dynamic address
allocation, *and* it ties
the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
Title : Prefix Delegation extension to Neighbor Discovery
protocol Author(s) : Arnaud Kaiser Sylvain Decremps Alexandru
Petrescu Filename: draft-kaiser-nd-pd-00.txt Pages : 24 Date
: 2012-10-15
Abstract: This document describes
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Comments about the idea in this draft? About the problem?
What is the rationale for duplicating the functionality in DHCPv6-PD into
ND? If code needs to be changed, why can't that code change be to
implement existing standard instead of
Mikael,
am Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:08:39AM +0200 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Comments about the idea in this draft? About the problem?
What is the rationale for duplicating the functionality in DHCPv6-PD
into ND? If code needs to be changed,
Hi Mikael,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Comments about the idea in this draft? About the problem?
What is the rationale for duplicating the functionality in DHCPv6-PD into
ND? If code needs to be
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
It is not just implementing that code in one node. DHCPv6-PD requires
Delegating Router on a DHCP server somewhere and then Requesting
Router on the edge router (there was a proposal to implement it on a
UE).
I know of implementations that do this
58 matches
Mail list logo
