RE: New idea for Router Sol/Adv and Mobility - NO new types

On one hand I agree with Erik that new types are better than overloading the semantics unnecessarily. The basic problem I am having with this thread is understanding the problem it is trying to solve. Since the HA is required to be in all possible routing paths to my home subnet (else some parts

RE: Patent Statement

This note should be sent to Steve Coya [EMAIL PROTECTED] so it can be posted according to RFC2026. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of yoshikazu oda Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 6:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Patent Statement Toshiba

RE: Clarification in Tunnel

Dave Marquardt wrote: One thing this made me wonder about, though. Let's say we have your ABCD scenario above: A-BCD C is a router. All nodes have IPv6 addresses, call them A6, B6, C6, and D6. B and C have IPv4 addresses, B4 and C4. Is

<    1   2   3   4