At 10:18 AM 7/15/2003 +0300, Jari Arkko wrote:
Krishna Kumar wrote:
Hi,
Is there any work ongoing to support mobile ipv6 over PPP links ? I am
trying
to do this but am having problems during movement. When I move from the
HN to FN (disconnect the MN's serial cable from one network and reconnect
to
The current work items in the wg charter and Margaret's presentation on
document status in the WG meeting shows PPPv6 as one of the items. Could
someone clarify what changes/updates are being considered for IPv6 over PPP
rfc? Are they technical or editorial/clarification of existing text?
I
The current work items in the wg charter and Margaret's presentation on
document status in the WG meeting shows PPPv6 as one of the items. Could
someone clarify what the changes/updates being considered for IPv6 over PPP
rfc are? Are they technical or editorial/clarification of existing text?
At 09:03 AM 1/21/2003 +0530, Digambar Rasal wrote:
Hi
I am developing a Web server , router , load balancers, Gateway and Switch
testing software.
I have read the RFC reagrding the addressing in IPv6 and I understood that
Web servers , routers , load balancers, Gateways and Switches can have
RFC2710 (MLD) states that when a General Membership Query is received, a
node listening to the query sends a membership report for all multicast
addresses it is listening to, excluding the all-nodes link-local multicast
address and any multicast addresses of scope 0 (reserved) and 1
Siva Veerepalli wrote:
RFC2710 (MLD) states that when a General Membership Query is received, a
node listening to the query sends a membership report for all multicast
addresses it is listening to, excluding the all-nodes link-local
multicast address and any multicast addresses of scope 0
Sec 2.5.6 of the site-local addressing architecture states that:
Site-Local addresses have the following format:
| 111011 | 54 bit subnet ID | 64 bit Interface ID |
Site-local addresses are designed to be used for addressing inside of a
site without the need for a global prefix. Although
Draft 11 of the Addressing Architecture says the following:
a. The prefix length of link-local is 10 bits i.e., FE80::/10 (sec 2.4)
b. For all unicast addresses, except those that start with binary value
000, Interface IDs are required to be 64 bits long and to be constructed in
Modified EUI-64
True, that is recommended as the default value. However, if a PPP link is
to support the privacy extensions RFC3041, wouldn't the node have to
perform DAD when generating an address using an interface ID different from
the one negotiated during IPv6CP? Of course, if one node on the PPP link
The IPv6 Stateless Address autoconfiguration RFC states that address
obtained via stateful address autoconfig should be tested for uniqueness.
For stateful address config, since state is maintained it is unlikely that
the same address would be assigned to two different interfaces. Isn't it?
10 matches
Mail list logo
