Hi,
I've been looking around in the IPv6 code recently and I noticed that
time_second seems to be the clock of choice for calculating expiry times
for prefixes, routers and addresses. Is there any specific reason it uses
wall clock time and not time_uptime as this makes more sense to me?
I'm ref
Thanks Chuck for the quick response,
On 19 February 2013 18:51, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>
> Sequence #s, retry timers, etc do better if based off of wall clock time
> than if based off of uptime because realtime persists in moving forward but
> uptime gets reset if the host crashes/reboots.
>
> RFC-
(Originally posted on freebsd-hackers@ - sorry)
Hi all,
I've been playing around with IPv6 networking on FreeBSD release 8.2 and
found that there seems to be no strong incoming host model as specified in
RFC 1122.
I've spotted that in IPv4 there is the sysctl "net.inet.ip.check_interface"
which
On 10 March 2012 00:03, Doug Barton wrote:
> So I guess I'll re-ask the question here: According to
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1122 that RFC has been updated quite a
> bit over the last 23 years. Have you followed that chain upwards to make
> sure that your concerns are still valid?
>
>
> D
On 10 March 2012 18:27, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
> I've not closely followed the most recent version of FreeBSD IPv6
> code, but the use of the routing table in ip6_input in the original
> KAME implementation had nothing to do with the strong host model. It
> was just for faster determinatio
Hi all,
I have some questions regarding accomplishing the strong model for
ingress IPv6 traffic with FreeBSD, as implemented in ip6_input.c.
Does it make sense to have a strong ES model in IPv6 *at all*? I’ve
yet to find any wording in the RFC’s referring to this – although
nothing explicitly di
