[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"

To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"
From: Mark Smith <ipv6@c753173126e0bc8b057a22829880cf26.nosense.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:15:24 +1030
Cc: he@uninett.no, ftemplin@iprg.nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <AC60B39EEE7320498063D37799FB82D90299C1E0@xbe-lon-313.cisco.com>
Organization: The No Sense Organisation
References: <AC60B39EEE7320498063D37799FB82D90299C1E0@xbe-lon-313.cisco.com>

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:22:43 -0000
"Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:

> - A PC with multiple Network addressable entities such as storage media

I had the maybe not so strange idea a while back of having all components within a PC have an IPv6 address, or at least represented within the OS by an IPv6 eg keyboard, mouse, HDD etc. I'm not necessarily suggesting that inter-device communication occurs over TCP or UDP though. Just IPv6 addresses for management, and possibly other uses that I haven't thought of.

You could then do tricks such as if the user complains that their HDD has stopped working, you could ping it over the network. Or have SNMP agents issue traps when eg. the keyboard stops working.

I don't know whether this model would make the PC a router, or just that the PC's interface to the network acts as a proxy for all the device's "internal" IPv6 addresses, performing things such as DAD on their behalf.


Regards,
Mark.

References:
- RE: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"
  - From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"
Next by Date: Stop "ROUTERS" vs "routers" discussion in v6ops [RE: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"]
Previous by thread: Re: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"
Next by thread: RE: "ROUTERS" vs. "routers"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread