In RFC 3316, "Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) for Some Second
and Third Generation Cellular Hosts"
why there are no transition mechanisms listed.
Is there any assumption behind this, that always there will be a default
router in the network (thatone of
the transition mechanisms) to
RFC 3316
intentionally doesn't address transition issues. These issues are
addressed in the
3GPP scenarios and analysis drafts in v6ops.
Hesham
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of JayabharathiSent:
Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:08
Title: Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingle
I second 1+X.AFAIC, from the beginning, this draft explicitly
considered DHCPv6 (though it was not RFC)as a stateful
mechanism.Stateful autoconfiguration is described in
[DHCPv6].wrote in RFC1971, Aug. 1996.
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:53:07 +0900,
JINMEI Tatuya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Regarding issue 277 of rfc2462bis (Semantics of M/O flags), one
controversial issue is how clearly we should specify the stateful
address configuration protocol.
(forgot to mention this) in this message, I
I second 1+X.
AFAIC, from the beginning, this draft explicitly
considered DHCPv6 (though it was not RFC)
as a stateful mechanism.
Stateful autoconfiguration is described in [DHCPv6].
wrote in RFC1971, Aug. 1996.
- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
- Mobile Platform Laboratory, Samsung Electronics.
Hi,
For IPv6, Should we run Neighbor Discovery protocol over PPP links?
Thanks
Subu
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
Question A: how should rfc2462bis specify the stateful protocol?
possible answers:
1. clearly say that stateful address configuration is DHCPv6
2. (intentionally) do not say anything about this, and (implicitly
or explicitly) leave it to the node requirements
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-04-13, at 15.53, JINMEI Tatuya / wrote:
Is there any other reason for not being clear on this (i.e., not
clearly say the stateful protocol is DHCPv6)? Or is this just a
matter of preference?
I would prefer 2+Y. Simply to minimize
Hi all,
Question A: how should rfc2462bis specify the stateful protocol?
possible answers:
1. clearly say that stateful address configuration is DHCPv6
2. (intentionally) do not say anything about this, and (implicitly
or explicitly) leave it to the node requirements document
I'm for (1) DHCPv6 and a reference to RFC 3315 (X).
- Bernie Volz
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [rfc2462bis] what is the
10 matches
Mail list logo