Thus spake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
A site is a network of computers with a single administration,
this can mean indeed a major corporation (who maybe even
require multiple /48's which is why rfc4193 is a bit off to cover
those cases)
Where has the IETF redefined the meaning of the word "site"?
In p
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the review. We are aware of this issue and have already
noted this. I would like to wait until the document progresses to make
sure that there is no flag conflict.
I had raised the issue after the 66th IETF with the IPv6 chairs as noted
in the dna minutes
http://www3.i
> >> which again give us some sort of aggregation... is this something we
> >> want? (althought it would fit us, where I work, perfectly since we would
> >> get almost all the space we need quite easy:-)
> > I would agree with Tony that aggregation of ULA-G space should be allowed.
> > I know ther
Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Folks, We would like to hear your comments on this document as
well. This document is a significant update to ipv6 neighbor
discovery and we would like some more eyeballs. Please spare some
time from your busy schedule to give it a look.
Really this should be targeted
On 2007-07-11 21:52, Scott Leibrand wrote:
Roger Jorgensen wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Tony Hain wrote:
I have a few points on Paul's draft:
Major complaint - aggregation
There needs to be at least a modest capability to aggregate. I
understand the aversion to having these show up in th
