Hi Digamar,
Sorry for not replying earlier.
I have read the RFC reagrding the addressing in IPv6 and I understood that
Web servers , routers , load balancers, Gateways and Switches can have
either Unicast or Multicast or Anycast address.
Any IPv6 node can have any of these types of
Erik Nordmark wrote:
On the enterprise side I can see that folks have been
bitting or are concerned about renumbering costs if they
were to use PA addresses.
But I don't have any data on how many consider having one
PA prefix per ISP good enough since it allows some graceful
cutover when
Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| |Sorry for the delayed response - didn't see me in the to: or cc: fields.
|
| I try to keep all the mail to the list just to the list...
|
|As long as you don't ask me direct questions and expect me to answer
|than would be fine. This time it took almost
Oops...
I made a mistake in the response. An anycast address can only
be assigned to a router (an IPv6 node that forwards packets), not
to a host.
So, most Web Servers could not be assigned an anycast address.
Sorry,
Margaret
At 08:28 AM 1/22/2003 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi
Hello,
A few comments on this draft; apologies about a very quick read only.
In general I agree with most conclusions in the draft. I don't like site
locals at all, because they're used wrongly. However, I can understand
why people want to use them .. the perceived ease for itself (but
Hello,
A few quick comments on the draft. Sorry for so little content.
As a general note I'm a bit unsure which particular usage cases different
site-local approaches aim to solve.
Substantial:
The moderate use scenario limits their use to cases where site-local
addresses specifically
Hello,
A few quick comments on the draft. Sorry for lack of content.
Substantial:
This document proposes an approach to allocating IPv6 Site-Local
address so they are globally unique and routable only inside of a
site.
== it would be good to go a bit more in depth to how this is
Section 11.2 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-08.txt contains a slight
error:
int on = 1;
setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_DONTFRAG, on, sizeof(on));
s/sizeof(on)/sizeof(on)/
mph
One thing I haven't seen discussed in the GUPI/GUSL threads is
how folks envision they and DNS to fit together for the lookups
especially when GUPI is used for private interconnects between sites
(whether it is site-to-site or goes through some ISPs through private
arrangements).
I do
Pekka Savola wrote:
== another disadvantage is that the sites should really be /48's to make
mergers with Internet global prefixes addressing easier.
Pekka,
In both Bob Hinden's draft and my (quite similar) version we are allocating
addresses to *subnets*, not *sites*. And subnets receive
Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Oops...
I made a mistake in the response. An anycast address can
only be assigned to a router (an IPv6 node that forwards
packets), not to a host.
So, most Web Servers could not be assigned an anycast address.
Yes that is what the spec says, but reality is
Erik Nordmark wrote:
But the private interconnects seem to imply that there needs to
be more than two faces - one for each set of set of sites that
use GUPI/GUSL for private interconnects I think.
Yes.
Has anybody thought through how this would work? With recursive
resolvers?
No. With an
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 14:26:50 -0800,
Michael Hunter [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Section 11.2 of draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2292bis-08.txt contains a slight
error:
int on = 1;
setsockopt(fd, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_DONTFRAG, on, sizeof(on));
s/sizeof(on)/sizeof(on)/
Thanks for the
Yes that is what the spec says, but reality is always somewhat
different. There is no technical reason that an anycast address could
not be assigned to any group of hosts. The issue that must be dealt with
there are technical reasons why anycast addresses can only be assigned
to
14 matches
Mail list logo
