Hi Fred,
On Oct 29, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
Hi Remi,
Thanks for the feedback.
On Oct 29, 2010, at 12:46 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
1. Sec 8, 2nd paragraph
Isn't it bits 49-64 instead of 34-48?
Yes, this will be fixed. Actually, it is 33-48.
I'm missing the reference. Is this from private email?
No reference... I mistyped... I think this is the same problem that
you, Fred, found earlier. There is a place in the document where it
says 34-48 and it should say 48-63 (not 49-64 as Remi indicated, and
not 33-48 as I indicated).
I need to take some time when I don't have any interuptions and look
over the algorithm very closely, to make sure that it is exactly
correct.
If you're discussing the bit numbering of the address (MRW -
remember I pointed this out to you?)...
The exact width of the subnet field is of course variable, but per
RFC 4291 that's where we will find it - in bits 48..63.
Exactly.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
