> On 14 Jul 2004 15:48:08 -0700,
> Tim Hartrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I slightly recall discussions on the idea of the random identifier,
>> but I don't even remember if it was rejected. Could someone show us a
>> pointer? If it was not actually rejected, one possibility in
>> rf
Jinmei, Dan,
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 09:08, JINMEI Tatuya / çæéå wrote:
>
> I slightly recall discussions on the idea of the random identifier,
> but I don't even remember if it was rejected. Could someone show us a
> pointer? If it was not actually rejected, one possibility in
> rfc2462bis wou
Hello members of ipv6,
Our client is in immediate need of a QOS Architect in the Bay Area. Below
is a description of the opportunity. If you would like to express interest,
my contact info is below. If you are not interested in the opportunity
yourself, please do forward it to anyone you know w
> p.s. right now, I don't think this issue (if we need to call it an
> issue) is a show-stopper to advance rfc2462bis.
I agree, it was more of a next step question. The document looks good to go
from my point of view.
Eric
- Original Message -
From: )>
To: "EricLKlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:20:21 +0300,
> "EricLKlein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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, b
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:36:32 -0400 (EDT),
> Dan Lanciani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
(snip)
> I believe it is a mistake for DAD to depend so strongly on the low-level
> characteristics of the network interface, especially when those characteristics
> vary so much from interface to interf
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 11:31:50 -0400 (EDT),
> Suresh Krishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> The following text makes no sense to me. Maybe I am reading this wrong but
>>> isn't this self contradictory
(snip)
>> No, because "the other packet" is unicasted to the tentative address
>> whi
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 04:56:40 +0900 (JST),
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino) said:
>> The simplest resolution would be to add a qualifier like this:
>>
>> If the address is a link-local address formed from an interface
>> identifier based on the hardware address which shoul
