You might be interested in DHCPv6. Try the DHCPv6 Internet Draft.
One location is
This is outdated! The newest version is -21.
URL:http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-20.txt
--
Dave Marquardt
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Austin, TX
+1 512 401-1077
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 : Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6)for the
Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification
Until the -21 version is published at ftp.ietf.org, you can get the latest
DHCPv6 draft at www.dhcp.org
- Ralph Droms
At 10:42 AM 11/30/2001 +0100, Martin Stiemerling wrote:
You might be interested in DHCPv6. Try the DHCPv6 Internet Draft.
One location is
This is outdated! The newest
I've cc'ed this reply to namedroppers, which might be a better place
to discuss this issue.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:35:53 +0100,
JOIN Project Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
recently I was very surprised, when I found that there is an existing
ip6.arpa. domain, where the reverse IPv6 nibble
On Thursday, 11/29/2001 at 08:55 EST, Lori Napoli/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS wrote:
draft-ietf-ipngwg-rfc2553bis-04.txt section 6.2 states:
The flags argument is a flag that changes the default actions of the
function. By default the fully-qualified domain name (FQDN) for the host
shall be returned,
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001 14:45:09 -0600 (CST),
Lilian Fernandes [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Is this draft going to RFC status anytime soon? A lot of the basic
behavior has changed between versions 02 and 03.
Most of them are clarifications on obscure stuff in the former drafts
and results of
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?
GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= writes:
I've cc'ed this reply to namedroppers, which might be a better place
to discuss this issue.
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001 09:35:53 +0100,
JOIN Project Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
recently I was very
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:14:24 -0500,
Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'd also like to know the current policy on this. The current status
is really confusing and can be a serious barrier to deploy IPv6.
Honestly, if we are allowed to live with the current spec
(i.e. ip6.int.
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?
GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= writes:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2001 10:14:24 -0500,
Steven M. Bellovin [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I'd also like to know the current policy on this. The current status
is really confusing and can be a serious barrier
I've cc'ed this reply to namedroppers, which might be a better place
to discuss this issue.
try dnsop, as this is not a protocol issue.
have a look at rfc 3152. also look at mailing list archives on the subject
of educating folk that the bit boundary and label type issues have nothing
to do
Lilian, Jinmei,
Is this draft going to RFC status anytime soon? A lot of the basic
behavior has changed between versions 02 and 03.
No kidding. I have pretty strong feelings that the changes related to
section 4.1 are bad. Primarily because this behavior was specified more
that two
% I'd also like to know the current policy on this. The current status
% is really confusing and can be a serious barrier to deploy IPv6.
%
% Honestly, if we are allowed to live with the current spec
% (i.e. ip6.int. with the nibble format), I'll be really happy.
% However, the transition to
12 matches
Mail list logo
