Le 15/09/2010 17:27, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= That can work but I don't understand why you don't like the
host on egress interface behaviour. The RFC seems inconsistent
on its requirements for the egress interface at home, but it's
been a long time since I read it so I may have forgotten
= That can work but I don't understand why you don't like the host
on egress interface behaviour. The RFC seems inconsistent on its
requirements for the egress interface at home, but it's been a long
time since I read it so I may have forgotten some of the reasons. I
think it can work and
: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix
Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard
Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Laganier, Julien wrote:
[...]
[ I also note that this draft has been more than 2 years in the MEXT
working group in which you are participating, which gave you ample
Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Laganier, Julien wrote:
Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Laganier, Julien wrote:
[...]
[ I also note that this draft has been more than 2 years in the
MEXT working group in which you are participating, which gave you
ample time to comment on
: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix
Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed Standard
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit
On 11/09/10 12:34 AM, Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 14:12, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the egress
interface. When at home fully Router on same. I am happy with it
this way.
= Ok that doesn't
= I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to solve this
problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email. I know what the RFC
says and I wouldn't have done it this way but given this, I don't know how
else you can solve it _here_.
I am open to solve it here and I have
Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Laganier, Julien wrote:
[...]
[ I also note that this draft has been more than 2 years in the MEXT
working group in which you are participating, which gave you ample time to
comment on this and other things... ]
Julien: Alex, myself, possibly others
Le 12/09/2010 01:03, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to
solve this problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email.
I know what the RFC says and I wouldn't have done it this way but
given this, I don't know how else you can solve it
Le 12/09/2010 01:03, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= I thought we were discussing the specific issue of how to
solve this problem in _this_WG_ as I mentioned in my first email.
I know what the RFC says and I wouldn't have done it this way but
given this, I don't know how else you can solve it
Le 11/09/2010 08:13, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 11/09/10 12:34 AM, Alexandru Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 14:12, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the egress
interface. When at home fully Router on same. I am happy
On Sep 11, 2010, at 5:22 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 11/09/2010 08:13, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 11/09/10 12:34 AM, Alexandru Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 14:12, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the
.
From: Hesham Soliman [hes...@elevatemobile.com]
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 16:03
To: Alexandru Petrescu
Cc: Wassim Haddad; IETF Discussion; mext
Subject: Re: [MEXT] Last Call: draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd (DHCPv6 Prefix
Delegation for NEMO) to Proposed
Le 10/09/2010 11:30, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 9/09/10 4:28 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 09/09/2010 08:01, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 9/09/10 3:54 PM, Wassim Haddadwassim.had...@ericsson.com
wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= Who cares, specify it in your product description. The IETF
doesn't specify how to build products.
Hmm... to me it is a very IETF sensitive issue the Router vs Host.
For example, an ND spec says distinctively what a Host and what a
Router
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
=Who cares, specify it in your product description. The
IETF doesn't specify how to build products.
Hmm... to me
Le 10/09/2010 14:12, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the egress
interface. When at home fully Router on same. I am happy with it
this way.
= Ok that doesn't make any sense to me.
Well, let me rephrase as the RFC text puts it: when the MR is at
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
=Who cares, specify it in your product description. The
IETF doesn't specify
Le 10/09/2010 18:57, Laganier, Julien a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= Who cares, specify it in your product
On 9/09/10 4:28 PM, Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 09/09/2010 08:01, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 9/09/10 3:54 PM, Wassim Haddadwassim.had...@ericsson.com
wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree mainly with the document
= Who cares, specify it in your product description. The IETF
doesn't specify how to build products.
Hmm... to me it is a very IETF sensitive issue the Router vs Host. For
example, an ND spec says distinctively what a Host and what a Router
does, e.g. a Host does not respond to Router
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
= Who cares, specify it in your product description. The IETF
doesn't specify how to build products.
Hmm... to me it is a very IETF sensitive issue the
When it is away from home it is fully a Host on the egress interface.
When at home fully Router on same. I am happy with it this way.
= Ok that doesn't make any sense to me.
If so then let it do the same at home. Otherwise, I don't know how
you want to fix this in this WG.
It
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 18:57, Laganier, Julien a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:48, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
=
Le 10/09/2010 23:18, Laganier, Julien a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 18:57, Laganier, Julien a écrit :
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 10/09/2010 11:58, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 10/09/10 7:55 PM, Alexandru
Petrescualexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 10/09/2010
Le 09/09/2010 08:01, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On 9/09/10 3:54 PM, Wassim Haddadwassim.had...@ericsson.com
wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network
Le 09/09/2010 07:54, Wassim Haddad a écrit :
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network
Prefix to the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
However, here are a couple of
On 9/09/10 3:54 PM, Wassim Haddad wassim.had...@ericsson.com wrote:
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network Prefix to
the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network Prefix to
the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
However, here are a couple of missing points.
One missing point is about how will the Mobile Router configure its
default route on
On Sep 8, 2010, at 7:58 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I agree mainly with the document draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd.
It is good and needed to dynamically assign a Mobile Network Prefix to
the NEMO-enabled Mobile Router.
However, here are a couple of missing points.
One missing point is
The IESG has received a request from the Mobility EXTensions for IPv6 WG
(mext) to consider the following document:
- 'DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation for NEMO '
draft-ietf-mext-nemo-pd-06.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final
31 matches
Mail list logo
