> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:40:12 -0700,
> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
> following document as an Proposed Standard:
> Title : IPv6 Scoped Address Architecture
> Author(s) : S. Deerin
> On Tue, 11 May 2004 09:40:45 +0200,
> Stig Venaas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Yes, your original analysis is correct...
>>
>> Seems like the protocol associated with the 'O' bit should be RFC 3736;
>> there is no particular advantage to using the 4 message exchange of RFC 3315
>> for
> On Mon, 10 May 2004 12:39:53 -0400,
> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Yes, your original analysis is correct...
> Seems like the protocol associated with the 'O' bit should be RFC 3736;
> there is no particular advantage to using the 4 message exchange of RFC 3315
> for "other c
Hi Folks,
I have a couple of comments on this draft
Section 2.3 Route Information Option
* The length can be more tightly specified. For example if the prefix
length is 0 the draft allows the length to be 1,2 or 3 while it is
sufficient to specify 1 as the only valid value for the length
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Bob Hinden wrote:
> This is a IPv6 working group last call for comments on advancing the
> following document as an Proposed Standard:
>
> Title : Default Router Preferences and More-Specific Routes
> Author(s) : R. Draves, D. Thaler
> Filenam
Coming back to the old thread, sorry for not responding earlier..
Also comments regarding the SHOULD/MUST/MAY debate below. I think we
should be first clearer to _what_ we're putting on these keywords.
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Dave Thaler wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> > So, I'd propose that this do
I wouldn't rule this out completely. I think normally RFC 3736 will be
the reasonable thing to do. But if client for some reason wants some
stateful info it could still try to use RFC 3315 I think.
The problem is that if a clients tries stateful DHCPv6 by sending an IA
option with the request whil
Alper Yegin wrote:
There was some discussion of this general concept (zero-configuration
routing and/or layer 3 bridging) in the Zerouter BOF and on the
zerouter mailing list... Does anyone know if that effort is still
active?
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-perlman-rbridge-00.txt
Fro
On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 12:39:53PM -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
> Yes, your original analysis is correct...
>
> Seems like the protocol associated with the 'O' bit should be RFC 3736;
> there is no particular advantage to using the 4 message exchange of RFC 3315
> for "other configuration information
