Hi John,
The specification reserves FE80::/10 for any link-local address
format. The only currently used instantiation is the FE80::/64 prefix.
In other words, a new RFC could define alternative formats for the
internal 54 bits underneath the FE80::/10 prefix.
Regards,
Brian
On Jul
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:18:06 -0700,
Bob Hinden [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
So,
+ I'd first like to confirm whether my understanding about the
'design principle' is correct. If it's wrong, then I'm fine and
this concern will be resolved.
I don't remember any ND design principals like this,
On 30 Jun 2006 09:36:59 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I agree with you at the security issue related to S flag for the open
RDNSS service. So I would like to add the following text to the next
version of my draft:
(snip)
7. Security Considerations
...
When the RDNSSes are
--- Forwarded Message
From: Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:26:27 -0400
Subject: draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt
FYI, draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-02.txt was submitted just
prior to the ID cutoff, and the authors believe it
Hi all,
I've reviewed this document and my comments are as follows.
1. Introduction
giving out an excessive. I think we need to define excessive and/or say if
this is an objective or subjective perception.
A general comment/opinion. I don't think this document should be published
as is, because
On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 09:16 -0400, Brian Haberman wrote:
Hi Pars,
One issue I see with this is string internationalization.
Defining the format of a name is not trivial given the current work to
internationalize names, strings, etc. to support languages that do not
use a
Tatuya,
Hmm...I cannot find background information about the design
principle on the net, either. It may be just an misunderstanding of
mine, in which case, yes, the above concern is resolved (I might then
propose a DHCPv6 server address RA option:-).
Feel free :-)
But then I have a
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|I've reviewed this document and my comments are as follows.
|
|1. Introduction
|giving out an excessive. I think we need to define excessive and/or say if
|this is an objective or subjective perception.
|
|A general comment/opinion. I don't think
Hi Pars,
One issue I see with this is string internationalization.
Defining the format of a name is not trivial given the current work to
internationalize names, strings, etc. to support languages that do not
use a Latin-based alphabet. For example, how would one format a name
in a
Hi,
Following on from Jordi's comment,
In addition, as an end user, it provides a recommendation to ISPs to provide
a reduced service in terms of the number of subnets, instead of the actual
/48 recommendations (with a clear example for /56), which I think is very
bad, especially when it is
10 matches
Mail list logo
