This is an editorial fix, and was approved by
Pekka Savola who originally raised the issue.
This issue is now closed.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests:
An editorial fix.
This issue is now closed.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
No objection to the proposed resolution, so
the issue is closed. Please revisit the issue
if you have a different opinion.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests:
No objection to the proposed resolution, so
the issue is closed. Please revisit the issue
if you have a different opinion.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests:
No objection to the proposed resolution, and the
issue is closed. Please revisit the issue if you
have a different opinion.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests:
No objection to the proposed resolution, and the
issue is closed. Please revisit the issue if you
have a different opinion.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests:
No objection to the resolution (which is just
a result of a previous ML discussion we already
agreed). This issue is now closed.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests:
No objection to the proposed resolution and at least one person agreed
on the resolution in ML. The issue is now closed. If you have a
different opinion, please revisit the issue.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL
No objection to the proposed resolution and at least one person agreed
on the resolution in ML. The issue is now closed. If you have a
different opinion, please revisit the issue.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:15:30 +0900,
S. Daniel Park [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
And even with single id and new prefix this is not good: on
RA with a new global prefix, every node on the link is going to do
DAD based on its ID and new prefix. And, as far as I know,
there is no delay
Alain Durand [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|On Feb 27, 2004, at 5:23 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
[...]
| But this
| begs the question of why an end site would ever want to use such
| addresses. I.e, this raises such questions as:
|
| - under what conditions would an address be reclaimed?
|
|to be
I have major, fundamental objection to the premises on which this draft is
based on. However, I think we should be able to find consensus on the way
forward.
Fundamental objection
-
The document assumes that it is always desirable to do
load-sharing with the equivalent
12 matches
Mail list logo
