Re: [rfc2462bis] summary and proposal about the M/O flags

2004-05-24 Thread Christian Strauf (JOIN)
> I'm not sure if we need to take a particular action for this in > rfc2462bis, but you may want to add a note like this in Section 5.5.2: > > Note that it is possible that there is no router on the link in this > sense but is a node that has the ability to forward packets. In > this case,

RE: [rfc2462bis] summary and proposal about the M/O flags

2004-05-24 Thread john . loughney
Hi Jinmei, The proposed text is OK with me. John > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 May, 2004 14:24 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [rfc2462bis] summary and proposal about

RE: [rfc2462bis] summary and proposal about the M/O flags

2004-05-24 Thread Christian Huitema
> Note that it is possible that there is no router on the link in this > sense but is a node that has the ability to forward packets. In > this case, hosts must be manually configured about the forwarding > node's address to be able to send packets off-link, since sending > r

Re: [rfc2462bis] summary and proposal about the M/O flags

2004-05-24 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:15:19 +0200, > "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> 11. revise Section 5.5.2 as follows: >> >> Even if a link has no routers, stateful autoconfiguration to obtain >> addresses and other configuration information may still be >> available, and ho

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2011-update-10.txt

2004-05-24 Thread Internet-Drafts
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 Internet Protocol (IP) Author(s) : S. Routhier

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipv6-node-requirements-09.txt

2004-05-24 Thread Internet-Drafts
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 : IPv6 Node Requirements Author(s) : J. Loughney Filename: draft-ietf-ipv6-no

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 281] Requirement for 64bit I/F ID

2004-05-24 Thread Brian E Carpenter
OK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM JINMEI Tatuya wrote: On Wed, 19 May 2004 12:16:27 +0200, Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: Jinmei, I believe your proposed new text at the

Re: [rfc2462bis] summary and proposal about the M/O flags

2004-05-24 Thread Christian Strauf (JOIN)
Jinmei, > Thanks for the feedback on this subject so far. thank you for the comprehensive summary, it looks very good! > 11. revise Section 5.5.2 as follows: > >Even if a link has no routers, stateful autoconfiguration to obtain >addresses and other configuration information may still b

Re: [rfc2462bis issue 281] Requirement for 64bit I/F ID

2004-05-24 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
> On Thu, 20 May 2004 22:14:54 +0900, > JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> Jinmei, I believe your proposed new text at the bottom is correct. >> 2462bis should not open the door to conflict in future link-layer >> specs. > Okay, but after re-reading the proposed new text, I then

[rfc2462bis] summary and proposal about the M/O flags

2004-05-24 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
All, Thanks for the feedback on this subject so far. I think we are now approaching a consensus, so here is a summary of resolution. - keep the M/O flags - clearly specify the protocols for the flags: RFC3315 for M and RFC3736 for O - clarify (change) the meaning of the M/O flags; they are jus