JINMEI Tatuya wrote:
How about this one? (this may still be controversial, and if so,
please continue the discussion. But since the cutoff deadline is
looming, I'll submit the draft with the proposed text below anyway.)
If the Neighbor Solicitation is going to be the first message to be
From: Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Markku Savela wrote:
From: Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- desire to avoid packet storms upon booting many nodes simultaneously
2710 accomplishes this by using message suppression. If a node hears a
Report for the same group, it cancels the
Hi Markku,
Markku Savela wrote:
From: Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Markku Savela wrote:
From: Brian Haberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- desire to avoid packet storms upon booting many nodes simultaneously
2710 accomplishes this by using message suppression. If a node hears a
Report for the same
Proposed Resolution: do nothing for this.
Reason: this is actually a non issue (see the previous comment
on the trucker).
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 08:27:04AM -0800, Alain Durand wrote:
Bill,
This is exactly what the local addr draft is all about with the current
text that makes
allocation permanent.
As a side note, the document talks about allocations, not delegations.
- Alain.
OK, but I think we
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Alain Durand wrote:
Billing recurrent fees is a way to guaranty that the database will be
maintainable.
With 1,000 billion entries, it might also become a large database...
Tim
On Mon, 2004-02-09 at 12:22, Tim Chown wrote:
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 09:16:49AM -0800, Alain Durand wrote:
Billing recurrent fees is a way to guaranty that the database will be
maintainable.
With 1,000 billion entries, it might also become a large database...
That's why proof of
