On 25 Mar 2015, at 02:01, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 25/03/2015 08:47, JF Tremblay wrote:
On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
[...] Make-before-break
renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering) is preferable but
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
2. We assume that a prefix delegation or withdrawal from above by
DHCPv6-PD will trigger the appropriate actions by
draft-ietf-homenet-prefix-assignment. But I can't tell from the draft
how that happens. Presumably some process in the relevant CPE
On Wed, 25 Mar 2015, JF Tremblay wrote:
Actually, why would the customer trigger this? Is there a good use case
for this? In my mind, this is purely triggered from the ISP side, when a
network event is planned to happen.
Because some customers feel that changing addresses is a privacy thing.
Thanks for the pointer to draft-baker-6renum-oss-renumbering, Tim. It’s true
that renumbering is only a sequence of numbering actions.
On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
At this time, I do not understand the DHCPv6-PD state machinery to enable
temporal
Hi,
Actually, why would the customer trigger this? Is there a good use case for
this? In my mind, this is purely triggered from the ISP side, when a network
event is planned to happen.
In some countries (e.g. Germany), operators provide customer’s with the ability
to request a change of
Hi,
For the IPv6 Ready/UNH-IOL testing that we have done, both an
Interoperability and Conformance, there is a test makes sure a Router supports
getting multiple IA_PDs for Prefix Change.
~Tim
On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
How does it
On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
Actually, why would the customer trigger this? Is there a good use case for
this? In my mind, this is purely triggered from the ISP side, when a network
event is planned to happen.
Because some customers feel that
On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Timothy Winters twint...@iol.unh.edu wrote:
Hi,
For the IPv6 Ready/UNH-IOL testing that we have done, both an
Interoperability and Conformance, there is a test makes sure a Router
supports getting multiple IA_PDs for Prefix Change.
Thanks Tim.
Two
Yup. Are you aware of similar issues with changing the IAID? If the ISP
has a
limit to how many prefixes can be assigned on a particular customer port,
that could cause issues, but if it's a supported feature as it would be in
Mikael's case, I think it should be OK. Do you know the
On 26/03/2015 05:31, Ian Farrer wrote:
Hi,
Actually, why would the customer trigger this? Is there a good use case for
this? In my mind, this is purely triggered from the ISP side, when a network
event is planned to happen.
In some countries (e.g. Germany), operators provide customer’s
On Mar 25, 2015, at 1:27 PM, STARK, BARBARA H bs7...@att.com wrote:
FYI. RFC 7084 has the following:
W-5: The IPv6 CE router MUST use a persistent DHCP Unique Identifier
(DUID) for DHCPv6 messages. The DUID MUST NOT change between
network-interface resets or IPv6 CE
On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Steven Barth cy...@openwrt.org wrote:
Ideally it could use the same DUID and just switch to a different IAID for
its IA_PD or even keep asking for two IA_PDs with different IAIDs at the same
time.
Right, sorry, I misspoke. Thanks for the correction! :)
Hello,
On Mar 25, 2015, at 12:37 PM, JF Tremblay
jean-francois.tremb...@viagenie.ca wrote:
On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Timothy Winters twint...@iol.unh.edu wrote:
Hi,
For the IPv6 Ready/UNH-IOL testing that we have done, both an
Interoperability and Conformance, there is a
On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:17 PM, STARK, BARBARA H bs7...@att.com wrote:
Yup. Are you aware of similar issues with changing the IAID? If the ISP
has a
limit to how many prefixes can be assigned on a particular customer port,
that could cause issues, but if it's a supported feature as it
On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:44 PM, JF Tremblay jean-francois.tremb...@viagenie.ca
wrote:
Thanks for checking. Changing the IAID might indeed be a good way to
implement the “reset privacy” button. Not sure if this should be added to any
specifications and which ones. Is this just a regional
On 25/03/2015 08:47, JF Tremblay wrote:
On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...] Make-before-break
renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering) is preferable but we can't
rely on it. (I also try to never forget Fred Baker's observation that
On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...] Make-before-break
renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering) is preferable but we can't
rely on it. (I also try to never forget Fred Baker's observation that
there is no such thing as renumbering: there
On 24.3.2015, at 14.00, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
1. Warn users that renumbering is planned/has started.
(because long-living sessions will be affected, even in make-before-break)
I am not sure this is really useful - ‘red alert, ISP is about to renumber!’?
18 matches
Mail list logo
