> Op 12 mrt. 2017, om 18:31 heeft Eric Luehrsen het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> This discussion has really put some requirements and restrictions on
> what I am trying to implement. I like that. Excuse my stream of
> consciousness writing style, if you question "what? .. crazy?" then its
> lik
Patchwork: Reject Patch.
It needs improvement. The time base for the address needs more stable
regulation just for one.
- Eric
___
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
This discussion has really put some requirements and restrictions on
what I am trying to implement. I like that. Excuse my stream of
consciousness writing style, if you question "what? .. crazy?" then its
likely my fault for not editing well.
On 03/11/2017 11:39 AM, Paul Oranje wrote:
>> RFC 33
> Op 11 mrt. 2017, om 14:09 heeft Bjørn Mork het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Paul Oranje writes:
>
>> Small addition (the following may be non-obvious to those not involved
>> in this discussion). Just saw that A_TA does not have renewal (T1) or
>> rebinding (T2) fields and for that reason can
Paul Oranje writes:
> Small addition (the following may be non-obvious to those not involved
> in this discussion). Just saw that A_TA does not have renewal (T1) or
> rebinding (T2) fields and for that reason cannot suit a use-case like
> a IA just for a work shift.
RFC 3315 section 22.5:
A
Small addition (the following may be non-obvious to those not involved in this
discussion).
Just saw that A_TA does not have renewal (T1) or rebinding (T2) fields and for
that reason cannot suit a use-case like a IA just for a work shift.
--
Paul
> Op 11 mrt. 2017, om 13:21 heeft Paul Oranje
> Op 11 mrt. 2017, om 06:09 heeft Eric Luehrsen het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> On 03/10/2017 09:09 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Eric Luehrsen writes:
>>> It appears many other severs and clients dont implement IA_TA. Its a lost
>>> option.
>> Sure. Very few want this feature. We must however assu
On 03/10/2017 09:09 AM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Eric Luehrsen writes:
>> It appears many other severs and clients dont implement IA_TA. Its a lost
>> option.
> Sure. Very few want this feature. We must however assume that those
> who do want it will implement it.
We must however assume nothing. We ma
Eric Luehrsen writes:
> It appears many other severs and clients dont implement IA_TA. Its a lost
> option.
Sure. Very few want this feature. We must however assume that those
who do want it will implement it.
> It should not break "expectations" as this an central administrative
> option.
Eric Luehrsen writes:
> IP6 SLAAC plus privacy is common. DHCPv6 should be able to provide
> the same funciton. This way central IT can maintain integrity and
> traceability. However, individual machines will not be easily
> placed into a pattern over time by external snooping.
This looks wrong.
IP6 SLAAC plus privacy is common. DHCPv6 should be able to provide
the same funciton. This way central IT can maintain integrity and
traceability. However, individual machines will not be easily
placed into a pattern over time by external snooping.
'option dhcpv6_privacy (bool)' is added per inter
11 matches
Mail list logo
