On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 01:24:59PM -0500, Brian Haberman wrote:
The WG Last Call has passed on this with two substantive comments.
The following is the proposed changes to -13 to address them. Please
voice your support or disagreement with these changes.
Looks good to me too.
I agree with the changes too
Ron
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
David Malone
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 5:33
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: Bob Hinden; IPv6 WG
Subject: Re: IPv6 WG Last Call:
draft-ietf-ipngwg-icmp-name-lookups-13.txt
On
Norman Virus Control ha borrado el e-mail original porque contenía el virus [EMAIL PROTECTED]
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Both of the proposed changes have problems (but can be fixed).
1) FF02:0:0:0:0:2:FF::/104 is not legal since
FF02:0:0:0:0:2:FF is 112 bits long. Perhaps
FF02:0:0:0:0:2:FF00::/104 was meant? What do existing
implementations use?
2) The proposed change makes it the recommended behavior
