Hi Tatuya,
I have a few comments regarding 2462bis.
Section 2:
Solicited-node multicast address: The draft mentions that the algorithm
for computing this address is described in RFC2461. This is not true. The
algorithm is described in the address architecture RFC [RFC3513]
Section 5.4 D
>> ok, from the attached message, i can see which direciton you are going
>> to. i'll wait for the next revision.
>
>The proposed revised text (the entire Section 5.4.5) is attached
>below. Is this acceptable?
basically i'm happy with the text. one thing boggles me is that
OK, I'll bite. Why all this talk about the global/split DNS,
and no talk about LLMNR?
Thanks - Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dan Lanciani wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I never intended locally-generated addresses to be in the global DNS, either
|forward or reverse, but there is nothi
JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Reminder: the following wg last call will end tomorrow (July 13th).
|So far, I've only seen one comment in response to the last call (the
|one from itojun about "disabling interface" on DAD failure).
|
|I'm afraid wg members are too busy for processing a r
"Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|I never intended locally-generated addresses to be in the global DNS, either
|forward or reverse, but there is nothing wrong with them being in a local
|DNS (via split horizon) if desired.
There is nothing wrong with their being in (at least) the forwa
Why not send this email message to the IAB and ask?
jak
- Original Message -
From: )>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 5:15 AM
Subject: [2462bis] IAB recommendation on prefix lengths
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to know opinions on the following IAB recommendati
Thus spake "Geoff Huston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 05:52 PM 7/07/2004, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> >Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > > ... Given the
> >>inevitability of collisions in the locally-assigned space, it doesn't
seem
> >>logical to allow them in the global reverse tree.
> >
> >There is no inevit
In reviewing this document one question comes to mind from my own personal
experience with IPv4 network and it is related to "zero touch provisioning".
I realize that this is for stateless provisioning, but I still could not see
where this would fall other than here.
Background:
Under the standard
Reminder: the following wg last call will end tomorrow (July 13th).
So far, I've only seen one comment in response to the last call (the
one from itojun about "disabling interface" on DAD failure).
I'm afraid wg members are too busy for processing a rush of new I-Ds
or for writing/updating their o
Hello,
I'd like to know opinions on the following IAB recommendation
regarding rfc2462bis (the latter part):
e) We recommend that, via a recommendation to the IESG, that the IPv6
Working Group expeditiously revise RFC-2461 to:
* specifically note that it is not valid to configure an IPv
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 14:32:08 +0900,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>> i would like to see your clarified text and then i may comment.
>>
>> The last one (see also a previous message of mine in this thread -
>> attached below). Or perhaps even more - for example, if a router
>> finds dupli
11 matches
Mail list logo
