On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:16:04PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2016/09/26 20:14, Florian Obser wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:23:25PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> >
> > > There's a problem with this: we lose the exponential backoff for the
> > > quick timer. Say you have v6 at
On 2016/09/26 20:14, Florian Obser wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:23:25PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> > There's a problem with this: we lose the exponential backoff for the
> > quick timer. Say you have v6 at home and enable autoconf on your laptop
> > then move to a network without
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 01:23:25PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> There's a problem with this: we lose the exponential backoff for the
> quick timer. Say you have v6 at home and enable autoconf on your laptop
> then move to a network without v6 - this results in you spamming the
> network with
On 2016/09/02 10:37, Florian Obser wrote:
> Our kernel based rtsol code is like this little child. We bring up
> the interface, send our first solicitation and get an advertisment
> back with a pltime of a week or so.
>
> We lean back, quite happy that we can do v6 now, but after 60 seconds
> we
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 05:49:22PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2016/09/02 10:37, Florian Obser wrote:
> > To stop naddy from pestering me about this at every hackathon (rightly
> > so!), let's base the timeout on the prefixes pltime. ;)
>
> Just a thought, are we going to need to cap this
On 2016/09/02 10:37, Florian Obser wrote:
> To stop naddy from pestering me about this at every hackathon (rightly
> so!), let's base the timeout on the prefixes pltime. ;)
Just a thought, are we going to need to cap this to the RDNSS time too when
we start caring about that?
On 2016/09/02 10:37, Florian Obser wrote:
> Our kernel based rtsol code is like this little child. We bring up
> the interface, send our first solicitation and get an advertisment
> back with a pltime of a week or so.
>
> We lean back, quite happy that we can do v6 now, but after 60 seconds
> we
