ROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:52 AM
Subject: Request to Advance "IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture"
> Erik, Thomas,
>
> The chairs of the IP
Just a comment, not about the document itself. At the last ETSI
IPv6 plugtest I did some tests about anycast support:
- source routing with a subnet anycast (something like please
go through this routing domain / sub-network)
- source routing with multiple anycasts (the same one)
- ping to a
Erik, Thomas,
The chairs of the IP Next Generation working group, on behalf of the
working group, request that the following document be published as an Draft
Standard:
Title : IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
Author(s) : B. Hinden, S. Deering
Filena
Keith,
>I am not sure I fully understand the distinction between reserved and
>unassigned. It would seem to me that in neither case is it safe to use one
>of the values for any purpose whatsoever, since a reserved value might
>subsequently become unreserved, and an unassigned value might subse
Gentlemen,
I notice that many of previously assigned values for other address
schemes have been removed and replaced by "unassigned".
I am not sure I fully understand the distinction between reserved and
unassigned. It would seem to me that in neither case is it safe to
use one of the values
Erik, Thomas,
The chairs of the IP Next Generation working group, on behalf of the
working group, request that the following document be published as an Draft
Standard:
Title : IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
Author(s) : B. Hinden, S. Deering
Filena
