Pekka Savola wrote:
Wording could be enhanced, but I do not think this document should be
blocked by the missing SEND details.
Well, what we can discuss is whether there needs to be some SEND
support before the document can go forward. But there's actually
three issues in the SEND support:
o
Hi,
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De
> la part de Pekka Savola
> Envoyé : lundi 19 septembre 2005 13:32
> À : Thomas Narten
> Cc : ipv6@ietf.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : Re: [Int-area] concerns about draft-ietf-ipv6-ndproxy-03.txt
>
> (FWIW
People might want to look in the tracker at the other comments
that have come up.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=12623&rfc_flag=0
Brian
Pekka Savola wrote:
(FWIW, I think ND proxies are useful and needed.) Some comments
inline. Adding ipv6 WG.
O
(FWIW, I think ND proxies are useful and needed.) Some comments
inline. Adding ipv6 WG.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:
1) I do not believe the material on IPv4 ARP proxy should be
included. It is not in-scope for the IPv6 WG to be developing it, and
any document on proxy ARP in IPv
