(BSigh of agony :/ I guess we both sent emails at the same time.
(BObviously these comments on the eve of the deadline won't make it.
(BI'm sure you have some good comments too :).
(BI'll go through them and let you know how they'll be handled. Obviously
(Bothers can chime in as well.
(B
Hi all,
I just submitted the (hopefully) last rev of 2461bis.
This revision includes all comments discussed on the list
till today. The only two things missing are updating the Ack
section and getting the RFC number for ADDRCONF in the references
section. I guess the latter can be a note to the
Hi,
I'm really sorry for not doing this earlier, but I've finally gone
through this one.
I basically do not have significant problems in this document, but
still have some non-trivial comments which would require another
revision (but I'm afraid you cannot address all of them before the
looming c
ok thanks.
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Daley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 6:53 PM
> To: Soliman, Hesham
> Cc: Christian Vogt; ipv6@ietf.org; Mark Doll; Roland Bless
> Subject: Re: RFC 2461[bis]: RS with srcaddr but w/o SLLAO
>
>
>
>
> Sol
Soliman, Hesham wrote:
The text now looks like this:
Router Solicitations in which the Source Address is the unspecified
address MUST NOT update the router's Neighbor Cache; solicitations
with a proper source address update the Neighbor Cache as follows. If
the router already has a Neighbor Cache
The text now looks like this:
Router Solicitations in which the Source Address is the unspecified
address MUST NOT update the router's Neighbor Cache; solicitations
with a proper source address update the Neighbor Cache as follows. If
the router already has a Neighbor Cache entry for the solicitat
Sorry for the late reply.
> 6.2.1. says,
>
>2369The above variables contain information that is
> placed in outgoing
>2370Router Advertisement messages. Hosts use the
> received information to
>2371initialize a set of analogous variables that
> control their
Hi Christian and Hesham,
I think people are asymptoting to the
same point.
Are we supposed to be suggesting text though?
Christian Vogt wrote:
Hi Hesham.
> [...]
> I guess this is why FreeBSD introduces a new state, NOSTATE. It does
> not do immediate address resolution on an entry in this stat
Bob,
Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fred,
>
>> Just glancing at the archives over the past few weeks, on the
>> subject of IPv6 addresses with embedded IPv4 addresses, the
>> discussion that has taken place so far is incomplete in that
>> it fails to mention ISATAP addresses. (Same commen
Fred,
Just glancing at the archives over the past few weeks, on the
subject of IPv6 addresses with embedded IPv4 addresses, the
discussion that has taken place so far is incomplete in that
it fails to mention ISATAP addresses. (Same comment also
for the subject thread on: " AYIYA link local address
Sorry this is very late... don't know if you are updating the draft ...
Comments below... essentially go ahead.
Regards
elwyn
> -Original Message-
> From: Mukesh Gupta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 03 February 2005 04:43
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: GEN-ART
Hi Hesham.
> [...]
> I guess this is why FreeBSD introduces a new state, NOSTATE. It does
> not do immediate address resolution on an entry in this state. It
> doesn't need to, because Rtadvd (on FreeBSD) sends multicast
> RA's in all
> cases except for ISATAP interfaces.
=> Right, I was
12 matches
Mail list logo
