On Sun, 14 Mar 2004, Christian Huitema wrote:
> We generally shied away from the second solution, and generally from
> using the host identification query to provide reverse mappings. Using
> LLMNR does make sense when LLMNR is also used as the primary name
> resolution service within the unique-lo
In her review of "draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt", Margaret
raises an excellent point:
> (1) This draft doesn't mention the reverse DNS tree. Is it expected
that
> whatever registry assigns these values will also populate the
reverse
> DNS tree? Or not?
The registration pro
Apparently there are some people in the IETF who use mail readers
that cannot handle standard text attachments. For those people, here
is a resend of the e-mail I sent earlier with the attachment included
in-line. Sorry for the duplication.
Hi All,
I've completed my AD evaluation of
draft-i
Hi All,
I've completed my AD evaluation of
draft-ietf-ipv6-unique-local-addr-03.txt. My comments (attached
below) include a few substantive issues that I would like to discuss
with the WG before sending this draft to IETF last call. Thoughts?
I have also included a few non-blocking editorial
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 16:09:49 +0100,
> Mattias Pettersson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I think this is not broken at all. The host should select the correct
>> prefix according to the source address selection rules. I tried this
>> scenario approximately 3 years ago on a KAME stack and i
