On 2020-06-07 19:02, Brandon Martin wrote:
On 6/7/20 6:01 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
There are very interesting and unobvious moments on IPv4 vs IPv6, for
example related to battery lifetime in embedded electronics. In ipv4,
many devices are forced to send "keepalives" so that the NAT
What I do not understand about this proposal is why we do not just fix
wireless multicast? For example the AP could unicast multicast frames to
subscribed STA and combined with MLD snooping we are done. Would be
backwards compatible too, compared to a whole new protocol which will take
decades to
" Multi links subnets are not a figment of my mind. ".
Precisely.
Two years ago, while lecturing a related study-unit for the first time, I
encountered this document: http://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/swry013
and it was by then already 4 years old.
Figure 1 is inexplicable without the concept of the
Just to clarify context, at this stage this is just Pascal's interesting
idea for how to make ND work better on wireless. No IETF working group
has adopted this. Various people seem to be interested, but it will be
some time before we know if his approach gets traction.
The biggest
What I'm amazed at is the concept of multi-link subnet and the change in IP
model being proposed.
See, for example, section 4 of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless-05
Has anyone felt the same about the change being proposed? This swept away
25 years of thinking
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 9:50 PM William Herrin wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 6:08 PM Yang Yu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 10:39 AM William Herrin wrote:
> > > Speak of which, did anyone ever implement FIB compression? I seem to
> > > remember the calculations looked really favorable for
The proposal seems to be aimed at more than that.
One major problem which this proposal addresses
is assignment of IPv6 subnets to links as transient and unreliable as links
between IoT nodes.
My ***guess*** is that binding an IPv6 subnet to a link that elusive would
be bad for routing.
On 6/7/20 6:01 AM, Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote:
There are very interesting and unobvious moments on IPv4 vs IPv6, for
example related to battery lifetime in embedded electronics. In ipv4,
many devices are forced to send "keepalives" so that the NAT entry does
not disappear, with IPv6 it is not
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 2:00 AM Fred Baker wrote:
> I'm sorry you have chosen to ignore documents like RFC 3315, which is where
> DHCP PD was first described (in 2003). It's not like anyone's hiding it.
I am sorry as well!
I openly admit I am not the smartest bear in the woods. I struggle to
On 2020-06-07 12:35, Daniel Sterling wrote:
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 2:00 AM Fred Baker
wrote:
I'm sorry you have chosen to ignore documents like RFC 3315, which is
where DHCP PD was first described (in 2003). It's not like anyone's
hiding it.
So while it may be true that no one is hiding this
Daniel Sterling writes:
> In all seriousness, I have been trying to understand IPv6 for a long
> time, and the documentation that I read (again, admittedly not often
> RFCs, but certainly Wikipedia, linux distro docs, etc) never mentioned
> DHCP PD, or at least never mentioned it as something
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 2:00 AM Fred Baker wrote:
> I'm sorry you have chosen to ignore documents like RFC 3315, which is
> where DHCP PD was first described (in 2003). It's not like anyone's
> hiding it.
Erhm, you probably meant RFC 3633 (also 2003). There was no PD in the
original DHCPv6
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020, at 12:02, Brandon Martin wrote:
> This is difficult to understate. "People" are continually amazed when I
> show them that I can leave TCP sessions up for days at a time (with
> properly configured endpoints) with absolutely zero keepalive traffic
> being exchanged.
On
FIB compression comes with some risks.
When routes churn, there are certain cases when you have to decompress the FIB.
Then, the FIB must have the space, or else OOPS.
If a set of compressed routes has to change to decompress some and compress a
different set to improve overall compression, there
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 3:01 AM Denys Fedoryshchenko
wrote:
> There are very interesting and unobvious moments on IPv4 vs IPv6, for
> example related to battery lifetime in embedded electronics. In ipv4,
> many devices are forced to send "keepalives" so that the NAT entry does
> not disappear,
On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 7:17 AM Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Sorry, but I have some problems understanding this. AFAICT, you can't
> read anything about configuring IPv6 access without seeing DHCPv6-PD
> mentioned.
The point isn't that I couldn't read about DHCP PD; the point is that
I didn't know that I
16 matches
Mail list logo
