> 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.
10 matches
Mail list logo
