Hi, all.
I'd like to start revision of RFC3484, because everybody knows
it has some defects and I think this issue of address selection
at end hosts is very important.
The points that I want to include in the revision of RFC3484
are follows:
Essential points,
* to remove site-local unicast
Hello,
Le Lundi 29 Mai 2006 13:23, Arifumi Matsumoto a écrit :
- Teredo is defined. (RFC4380)
Teredo should have less priority than 6to4 and IPv4
considering its communication overhead and reliability ?
Also, this value below conforms to Windows.
I pretty much agree
Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
Hello,
Le Lundi 29 Mai 2006 13:23, Arifumi Matsumoto a écrit :
- Teredo is defined. (RFC4380)
Teredo should have less priority than 6to4 and IPv4
considering its communication overhead and reliability ?
Also, this value below conforms to Windows.
Hi,
Few questions:
Internet Address
Table:
ipAddressPrefix
OBJECT-TYPE
"A
pointer to the row in the prefix table to which this address
belongs. May be { 0 0 } if there is
no such row"
In
the above context
vivek1
What's the significance of an entry in this table, with pointer (0,0).
