Re: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

% Alain, % % The current document does not enforce a business model (earlier versions % did), but does set technical constraints. Personally I don't think it is % possible to 'Provide mechanisms that prevent hoarding', so the requirement % 'without any procedure for de-allocation' creates a proble

Protocol Action: 'IP Forwarding Table MIB' to Proposed Standard

The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IP Forwarding Table MIB ' as a Proposed Standard This document is the product of the IP Version 6 Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Thomas Narten and Margaret Wasserman. Technical Summary This document defines a portion of the Man

RE: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Alain, The current document does not enforce a business model (earlier versions did), but does set technical constraints. Personally I don't think it is possible to 'Provide mechanisms that prevent hoarding', so the requirement 'without any procedure for de-allocation' creates a problem once hoard

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2012-update-06.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the IP Version 6 Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : Management Information Base for the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Author(s) : R. Rag

Call for Scribes

All, This is a call for volunteer scribes for the Seoul meeting. We have one slot on Tuesday afternoon. If you are willing to act as a scribe for the IPv6 WG meeting, please let the chairs know. Thanks, Brian & Bob IETF IPv6

Tentative Agenda for Seoul

All, Attached is the tentative agenda for Seoul. The chairs are still formulating other items. If you have a topic/document/issue you would like included, please contact the chairs. Regards, Brian & Bob IPv6 WG co-chairs Tuesday (02/02/04) 1545-1800 -- 1. I

RE: Optimistic DAD _again!_

Hi Nick: If more voices can help, you have my full support as well :) Pascal > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick 'Sharkey' Moore > Sent: jeudi 19 février 2004 09:52 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Optimistic DAD _again!_ > > Hi IP

Re: Request To Advance : "Unique Local IPv6 Unicast Addresses"

Dears ADs, I found it very unfortunate that the chair decided to request to advance this document without answering two major issues I raised during the last call: - Permanent allocation is equivalent of selling address space, which is very different from the notion of stewardship that are no