Hi,
we are process of changing network to Ipv6 and looking for switches and
routers those are supporting Ipv6 or Ipv6 and Ipv4 . If anybody has idea
about it please let me know
Digambar Rasal
Controlnet India Pvt Ltd
Verna Goa.
This page should be a good place to start :
http://www.ipv6.org/impl/index.html
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 22:12, Digambar Rasal wrote:
Hi,
we are process of changing network to Ipv6 and looking for switches and
routers those are supporting Ipv6 or Ipv6 and Ipv4 . If anybody has idea
about it
Our IPv6 supports Router functionality for platforms like
VxWorks, QNX, OSE, etc... Please have a look at www.futsoft.com
~sivaram
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Digambar Rasal
Sent: Monday, 9 December 2002 4:43 PM
To: [EMAIL
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Basic Socket Interface Extensions for IPv6
Author(s) : R. Gilligan, S. Thomson
I had proposed limiting the use of site-locals to completely isolated
networks (i.e. test networks and/or networks that will never be
connected to other networks). This would give administrators of
those networks an address space to use (FECO::/10) for those networks
The first question that
GUPI would not be globally routable. It would be a way to make sites
privately communicate, as neither the limited usage or the
moderate
usage of site-locals provides this.
And compared to global addresses the advantage is?
Besides not having to go to a RIR?
not having to have a connection
You where not at the rebellion/ad-hoc/let's get out of here and go for bee
multi6 meeting on Thursday in Atlanta.
I was not actually aware of these meetings until later... I have
since joined the mailing list.
One thing I have been think of. Do we know what the increased
prefix-length
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 09:50:04 -0500
From: Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: unique enough [RE: globally unique site local addresses]
...
I have the following things running around in my brain, and they aren't
converging:
- We need to provide PI addressing in IPv6,
not having to have a connection to the public v6 internet in order to
get an address block, or if you are connected, having a prefix which
is stable across changes in ISPs.
Having a connection or not is a policy decision. Stable addresses is an
issue on creating PI space. There is no
We had three largish groups -- the folks who wanted to eliminate site-local
addresses from the architecture altogether, the folks who wanted to limit
site-locals to disconnected networks (the limited usage case) and the
folks who wanted to limit site-locals to sites that don't touch other
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
Title : IPv6 Globally Unique Site-Local Addresses
Author(s) : R. Hinden
Filename : draft-hinden-ipv6-global-site-local-00.txt
Pages : 7
Date : 2002-12-6
This internet draft describes a proposal for IPv6
- We don't currently have a fully developed plan for
aggregable, scalable IPv6 PI addressing. Some
folks are working on this problem, but no one
has claimed to have a full answer yet.
AFAIK, addressing isn't the problem, routing of
This proposal is making the assumption that MAC addreses are somehow stable.
I think this is a bad idea.
A simple change of a NIC card in a router will start a renumbering event,
and, although somehow simpler than in IPv4, IPv6 renumbering event are far
from painless.
On our servers, we recommend
Another issue is that certain quad fast ethernet vendors (e.g. Sun)
make 4-port cards where each interface has the same MAC address,
which would mean I assume that by default each of the subnets run off
those ports would have the same /64 network prefix?
The DLink 570TX quad cards we use don't
Alain,
At 02:10 PM 12/9/2002, Alain Durand wrote:
This proposal is making the assumption that MAC addreses are somehow stable.
I think this is a bad idea.
MAC addresses are stable. What may not be stable is their life in on an
interface in a specific machine. The words in the draft are:
Bob Hinden wrote:
3.2 Assignment
The globally unique site-local prefixes defined in this document are
intended to be manually assigned to router interfaces in a site. The
global token used in each prefix would be created from an EUI-48
address found in an interface on the subnet.
There is no
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
...
I realize that the IETF cannot enforce such a restriction.
But, we can write a standard that says these addresses are
intended for use on isolated networks and must not be used on
non-isolated networks (or equivalent).
My concern is the choice of 'must'
Hi Bob,
A few thoughts / questions / comments on your draft :
3.0 Proposal 3.1 Global Token
* 8 bit areas
I'm curious as to why you chose to allocate 8 bits for the area.
Allocating 6 bits for area would allow aggregation to take place on the
/16 bit boundary. I think this would make it a
18 matches
Mail list logo
