I sent this in earlier today. I believe this revision resolves all the open
issues.
ftp://ftp.research.microsoft.com/users/richdr/draft-ietf-ipngwg-default-addr
-select-01.txt.
The main changes from the previous version:
Changed the candidate set definition so that the strong host model
At 2:52 AM +0900 7/1/00, JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
>
>Hmm...this is surely a candidate that we can compromise, but please
>let me ask you some questions about this model:
>
>- In this model, we still interpret sin6_scope_id as a single space
> (over all scopes)
At 9:52 AM -0700 6/30/00, Richard Draves wrote:
>My first reaction is I think your suggestions (reproduced below) are logical
>& consistent, but I do worry about one thing.
Two weeks late in answering (better than usual for me)...
> If I understand correctly, you're saying that a user could say
During w.g. last call, I suggested a change of wording in the
definition of IPv4-mapped addresses (mail attached below). I
see the suggestion was not incorporated in addr-arch-v3-01.
Let me offer an example of what motivated my suggestion.
Suppose we have 2 IPv6/IPv4 nodes: Node A has IPv6 addr
I jave just submitted a revision of ICMP Name Lookups which addresses
most of Tatuya's and Itojun's concerns. Not addressed was this:
> also, we may have scope issue here. What should happen in the
> following cases:
> - if you got node information query from/to global IPv6 ad
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPNG Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Extensions to IPv6 Neighbor Discovery for Inverse
Discovery Specification
Author(s) :
