Hi there all,
I discovered that I'd somehow misnamed a draft that Juliusz Chroboczek ,
Toke Høiland-Jørgensen, and myself had written — somehow I'd managed to
name it draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6, instead
of draft-chroboczek-intarea-v4-via-v6.
Anyway, it is targeted at intarea, and so I renamed
Warren,
Just to confirm, this is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6/
currently at -02. Correct?
I think this is a good idea and support it. I will try to review it and
provide more comments. The ICMP behavior is an interesting problem.
Bob
> On Jan 22, 20
I think the ICMP problem needs to be addressed. Perhaps with an IPv4 option to
embed the identity of the router (IPv6 address or some other way to identify
the owner). One of the main purposes of traceroute is to identify the router
that is dropping packets. It will not be helpful if all the
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 11:23 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Warren,
> Just to confirm, this is:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6/
>
> currently at -02. Correct?
>
Nope - this is
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-intarea-v4-via-v6/
(note "intarea" vs
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:08 PM, Herbie Robinson <
herbie.robin...@stratus.com> wrote:
> I think the ICMP problem needs to be addressed. Perhaps with an IPv4
> option to embed the identity of the router (IPv6 address or some other way
> to identify the owner). One of the main purposes of tracer
In many cases, the whole point of using ping and traceroute is to verify that
the entire route between nodes works. The PROBE approach doesn’t provide all
of the needed functionality.
From: Warren Kumari
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2024 3:23 PM
To: Robinson, Herbie ; Bill Fenner
Cc: Internet A
I think this draft is a good idea and I'd like to see it progress. Doing
this in Babel worked quite well, and I agree that it makes sense to
generalize it.
On the topic of source addresses for ICMPv4, I quite liked the Babel
solution in RFC 9229 (use any routable v4 address if you have one,
otherw
All
I have a draft in BESS that uses RFC 8950 and applies it to all BGP
AFI/SAFI use case of a single IPv6 peer that can advertise any IPv4 NLRI
and as well the converse use case of a single IPv4 peer that can advertise
any IPv6 NLRI.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-bess-v4-v6-pe-al
