> 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,
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
> 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
> 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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo