Thanks for the correction. My error in the announcement.
Bob
At 06:20 PM 1/23/2002, JINMEI Tatuya /
=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 10:40:49 -0800,
> > Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments o
Mr. Fleming,
The ipng mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is for the use of the
IETF's IPv6 working group. The chairs of the IPv6 working group believe
that many of your recent postings to the ipng mailing list have been off
topic and are disruptive to the work of the working group. Your posts
In your previous mail you wrote:
This is the last issue for the base api
=> so This shan't be considered as unfair to ask that the base API
document is published "not after" the advanced API document?
(there is a current WG last call on the advanced API, basic API
seems to be ready for
Folks,
This is the last issue for the base api . We will send in final draft for
INfo RFC annouce from the chairs. The only change will be to add Jack
McCann as co-author to the base API current draft spec.
This request is out of scope for this API. It could be an extension to
the Advanced A
Nevertheless, it is not architecturally forbidden to subnet at /124
if you really want to - but doing so at /48 is more likely to be
supported by all products. If I was an implementor, I certainly
wouldn't worry if a /124 prefix kicked me onto a slow path, as long
as prefixes from /3 to /64 were h
