Hello,
After reading the complete document, I feel that there are a few pieces
that are still missing in the document.
Suggested reorganization
---
The document can do with some reorganization. Section 2 is a bit too
long. It needs to be broken up, and a few more sections
Hello,
After reading the complete document, I feel that there are a few pieces
that are still missing in the document.
Suggested reorganization
---
he document can do with some reorganization. Section 2 is a bit too
long. It needs to be broken up, and a few more sections
Hello,
Few comments on draft-thaler-ipv6-ndproxy-00.txt.
CP
1. Section 1. First bullet following the first paragraph.
The first bullet talks about an "access point". Give a reference to
the 802.11 spec. Should 802.11 be mentioned in the first place? What
advantage does ndproxy provide
Hi Thomas,
The text looks good, I'll add it.
thanks,
John
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 29 September, 2003 21:16
> To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue26: 9.1.1 IPv6 Router Alert
> Opti
Hi Thomas,
I'll remove the text.
John
> -Original Message-
> From: ext Thomas Narten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 30 September, 2003 13:50
> To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki)
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Node Req: Issue27: 11. Security Considerations
>
As the originator of section 4.8, I'll speak to this one...
Fred Templin wrote:
>
> > 4.8 I'm afraid I couldn't understand this scenario at all. When the
> > two sites connect, do they essentially merge into a single,
> > multi-homed site?
>
> I believe the answer to this is yes, and I believe
> Hi all
> I m new to IPv6. Can anybody answer the following question, so that I could b
> etter understand IPv6 :
>
> Is fragmentaion is possible in IPv6 Packet/datagram ?? if Yes then how ??? if
> No. then why not ???
See RFC 2460.
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ipv6-cha
Hello Ralph,
Thanks for the comments; please see my responses below:
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ralph Droms wrote:
Here are my comments on draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-02.txt...
Global organization - as I read the doc (others' reactions may differ), I
feel like I'm reading a document that i
Brian,
Thanks for sending the detailed comments. Will give a first-pass
at them below, but may require a couple of iterations.
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian Haberman wrote:
[WG chair hat off]
Below are my comments on the Hain/Templin draft. Globally,
I think that these goals are worthwhile for t
Hi all
I m new to IPv6. Can anybody answer the following question, so that I could better understand IPv6 :
Is fragmentaion is possible in IPv6 Packet/datagram ?? if Yes then how ??? if No. then why not ???
Thanx
ahj
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
The IESG has reviewed the appeal by Tony Hain of the IPv6 Working Group
chairs' declaration of consensus on the issue of site local addresses in
the IPv6 address architecture.
Tony's appeal requests that the declaration of consensus be overturned due
to the ambiguity of the question asked.
As
All,
The chairs are currently formulating the agenda for the
Minneapolis meeting. If you have items you wish included,
please send the request to the chairs.
Regards,
Brian & Bob
IPv6 WG Chairs
IETF IPv6 working group mailin
Here are my comments on draft-hain-templin-ipv6-limitedrange-02.txt...
Global organization - as I read the doc (others' reactions may differ), I
feel like I'm reading a document that is based on some assumptions about the
solution before describing the problem. In particular, the first sentence
i
[WG chair hat off]
Below are my comments on the Hain/Templin draft. Globally,
I think that these goals are worthwhile for the entire IPv6
protocol suite. This type of functionality is needed in order
for people to feel comfortable migrating from v4 to v6.
Goals for an Addressing Scheme to Supp
Mesg sent 2003 Sept 30 10:04
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
I would support the removal of the text. These security issues
really belong in the base specifications and not in an Info doc.
Regards,
Brian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas,
Your comments at the end of this mail confused me. Do you want the text
removed or do you want clarifying text? The m
> Your comments at the end of this mail confused me. Do you want the text
> removed or do you want clarifying text?
I'm fine with removing it. My last point was more about if it's felt
the text needs to stay.
Thomas
IETF IPv6
17 matches
Mail list logo
