On Wed, 18 May 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
The proposed changes in Section 2.7 on Multicast Addresses and Section 4.0
IANA Considerations can be found below. The changes are based on the issues
raised by Thomas Narten and the IANA. I believe this will resolve the
issues.
You might want to add a
Pekka,
At 12:42 AM 05/19/2005, Pekka Savola wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Bob Hinden wrote:
The proposed changes in Section 2.7 on Multicast Addresses and Section
4.0 IANA Considerations can be found below. The changes are based on the
issues raised by Thomas Narten and the IANA. I believe this
On Wed, 18 May 2005 17:14:46 -0700,
Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
- our implementation currently does NOT delay the response to an
anycasted or multicasted query.
The question here is the delay useful. To me this would seem useful for
multicast queries, but I don't see the need for
On Sun, 15 May 2005 11:17:49 -0400,
Margaret Wasserman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I've asked related questions about this comment on the wg list two
times, including requested information at the Minneapolis meeting, but
I've not got any responses...if this comment does not require any
change
Margaret,
It is up to the WG Chairs, Bob and Brian, to put together an
implementation report. In this particular case, this may only involve
pointing at the old implementation report and explaining why the changes
in this document do not warrant gathering further implementation data. I
will
Jinmei,
The question here is the delay useful. To me this would seem useful for
multicast queries, but I don't see the need for ones for anycast.
I don't see the need (for anycast), either. In fact, in the case of
anycast, the query packet should be delivered to a single responder
only, and
Thomas,
If the original 2461 text is really deemed insufficient, how about
something like:
o M :
1-bit Managed address configuration flag. When set, it
indicates that addresses are available via Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6], including addresses that were
