> Brian Haberman wrote:
> I do not recall geographic-based addresses ever being a
> part of the IPv6 standards.
I don't either.
> Tony Hain has an individual ID that discusses one
> possible approach (draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-05.txt).
Another approach based on a combination of population and geog
Eric,
I do not recall geographic-based addresses ever being a part of
the IPv6 standards. Tony Hain has an individual ID that discusses one
possible approach (draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-05.txt).
In addition, the geopriv working group is chartered with how
geographic location can be securel
I have missed a little bit of the converstions about this, so forgive me for
asking what once was a simple question:
What is the current status of geographic location in the IPv6 address? Once
it was part of the standard, is this still true, and if so how or if not
what replaced it.
thanks,
Eric
Attached is the agenda for Minneapolis as it currently stands. Work
Group participants are encouraged to contact the chairs with other
topics they wish to have discussed at the meeting.
Regards,
Brian & Bob
IPv6 WG co-chairs
Tuesday (11/11/03) 0900-1130
--
Intro
The co-authors have discussed Sebasiten's issues off-line and here
is what we decided on the modification in the next version of the draft.
Let's close it on this alias. Please include the folks on the CC list on
your reply, thanks.
In summary, the issues were:
1) IPV6_PREFER_SRC_TUNNEL, IPV6_P
