I support WG adoption
(as a co-author)
Tal.
-Original Message-
From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Suresh Krishnan
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 6:59 AM
To: Internet Area
Subject: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-nachum-sarp-06.txt
Hi
lity in the control plane, but since this functionality would
typically be implemented in software, as a chip vendor it is less relevant for
us.
Tal Mizrahi.
Marvell.
-Original Message-
From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
S
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for taking the time to review the draft.
> However, at least initially, SARP would be implemented in the service
> processor (consuming CPU cycles). It would be years (if ever) before silicon
> would implement this.
Speaking as a chip vendor: our existing silicons support the
[mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:35 AM
To: Joachim Fabini; Tal Mizrahi; Al Morton
Subject: New Version Notification for
draft-mizrahi-intarea-packet-timestamps-00.txt
A new version of I-D, draft-mizrahi-intarea-packet-timestamps-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Tal
Hi,
New draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcb-intarea-icmpv6-loopback/
We have posted a new draft that proposes two new ICMPv6 message types:
Loopback Request and Reply.
ICMPv6 Loopback is very similar to Echo, except that after a Loopback
Request is sent, its corresponding Reply incl
pecify this behavior.
>
>
> Deployment might be easier as I suspect ICMPv6 types other than the current
> definitions will be filtered in many places.
>
>
> Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 2023, at 4:54 AM, Tal Mizrahi > <mailto:tal.mizrahi@gmail.com>
Hi Herbie,
>What about taking advantage of the ICMP error mechanism?
As the draft says, ICMP error messages already include the header and
payload of the original "offending" packet, including for example the
Time Exceeded messages in Traceroute.
The Loopback exchange is similar to Echo, except t
Michael,
Please note the following sentence in the security considerations
section: "the amplification effect in this case is similar to ICMPv6
error message, and specifically similar to Traceroute."
Sending a Loopback causes the exact same amplification as invoking the
last packet of Traceroute,
/reverse-traceroute-its-just-traceroute-but-the-other-direction/
>
>
> One caveat is however that we conducted these measurements only on IPv4.
> Results might or might not differ for IPv6.
> For reverse traceroute, which itself implements both ICMP and ICMPv6, we
> have however su
e inside the ICMP reply (for v4 at least).
>
> Best,
>
> Rolf
>
> Am 21.06.23 um 06:53 schrieb Tal Mizrahi:
> > Hi Valentin,
> >
> > Thanks for this valuable data.
> > Based on your findings, the good news is that new codes will most
> > likely traverse
sion about previous versions of this draft in the ARMD
mailing list.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-nachum-sarp
Comments will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Tal Mizrahi.
___
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Hi,
I have read this draft and I support its adoption.
Thanks,
Tal.
On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 10:56 PM Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga)
wrote:
>
>
> Dear IntArea WG,
>
>
>
> As discussed at the IETF 121 meeting, we are starting a 2-week WG call for
> adoption of PROBE: A Utility for Probing Interfa
Hi,
My main concern about this draft is that I did not feel that it 'does
what it says on the box'. When I read the title and abstract, my first
thought was that this looks like the standard track version of
RFC8799. However, after reading through it, I believe that the main
focus is Ethertype-bas
Hi Luigi,
I am not aware of any IPR that is related to this document.
Cheers,
Tal.
On Thu, Jun 19, 2025 at 2:20 PM Luigi Iannone wrote:
>
> All,
>
>
> Currently, there are no IPR disclosures in the datatracker against the
> document in the subject.
>
>
> If anybody is aware of any relevant und
14 matches
Mail list logo
