To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; Fred Baker (fred); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changes suggested to 2462bis-08
At Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:16:29 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, it is not clear which
Tatuya,
OK, it's alright to say an accident, but this accident caused the
security problem because we still think if Host1 is receiving traffic
that was meant to go to Host2, it's a security problem.
You also described the other security problem case where you said, Host1
is not
Related to this topic, long time ago when the choices of
a) DAD only on link local, and not on other addresses derived
from the same id (legal on original RFC)
b) do DAD indivially on each address
were discussed, I preferred (a) (and still do), and proposed an
additional logic on hosts using
At Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:10:19 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's focus on the problems at hand and solutions - forget delay of
2462bis I-D or what have you. Why are we referring to text in 2462bis as
an admittance that accident cases can exist when we have a solution
discussed.
- Hemant and Wes
-Original Message-
From: JINMEI Tatuya / [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:42 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; Fred Baker (fred); ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
On 2007-06-22 18:25, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jun 22, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What is out there as running code is history and words in RFCs will
not change it.
I think his point is that a new IPv6 implementation has just been
released into the market and is not operating
At Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:25:13 -0700,
Fred Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think his point is that a new IPv6 implementation has just been
released into the market and is not operating very well. Forget the
compliance language; what he's saying is that the various IPv6
implementations
At Fri, 22 Jun 2007 09:05:36 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for the quick review of section 5 in our new I-D. Your reading
of section 5 is correct - we have proposed both new and old
implementations to always perform DAD for any unicast address. You are
also
@ietf.org; JINMEI Tatuya /
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changes suggested to 2462bis-08
On 2007-06-22 18:25, Fred Baker wrote:
On Jun 22, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What is out there as running code is history and words in RFCs
-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changes suggested to 2462bis-08
At Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:45:35 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let us summarize the discussion that has taken place so far and issues
closed.
1. Technical content - Brian has agreed below that the problem we
describe
At Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:16:29 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, it is not clear which security problem this bullet tries to
indicate.
hs The problem we refer to is the fact that Host1 and Host2 have the
same GUA on the same link! This is an obvious problem
@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Ralph
Droms (rdroms)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changes suggested to 2462bis-08
At Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:31:58 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see section 5 of our I-D
; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wes Beebee (wbeebee);
Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changes suggested to 2462bis-08
At Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:31:58 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see section 5 of our I-D for a proposed
.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 10:09 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: JINMEI Tatuya / ; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changes suggested to 2462bis-08
Hemant
Beebee (wbeebee); Ralph
Droms (rdroms)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00 with urgent
changes suggested to 2462bis-08
At Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:31:58 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see section 5 of our I-D for a proposed change to 2462bis-08 -
we
On Jun 22, 2007, at 7:38 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
What is out there as running code is history and words in RFCs will
not change it.
I think his point is that a new IPv6 implementation has just been
released into the market and is not operating very well. Forget the
compliance
Le jeudi 21 juin 2007, Hemant Singh (shemant) a écrit :
Please see section 5 of our I-D for a proposed change to 2462bis-08 -
we hear this I-D is
in Editor's queue and any changes to it must be given ASAP.
Could you please use US-ASCII rather than UTF-16 for you I-D, as is
customary here?
Will do, thanks for this tip. I will send out another copy soon.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Denis-Courmont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 12:36 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-pitfalls-00
At Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:31:58 -0400,
Hemant Singh (shemant) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please see section 5 of our I-D for a proposed change to 2462bis-08 - we
hear this I-D is
in Editor's queue and any changes to it must be given ASAP.
(with the document editor hat of 2462bis on)
From a quick
19 matches
Mail list logo
