All,
I submitted a new individual draft regarding address selection
policy conflicts.
This document tries to speculate what kind of conflicts we
will have, and how we can address them.
This document is not based on any specific proposed address
selection mechanisms.
I'd like to have comments on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Roman,
Appologies for the lateness of my reply,
and thanks for the many helpful comments.
I'll try to incorporate the editorial fixes
as much as possible.
The following comments are mostly about the technical part.
> The draft seems to downplay
Le 7 juil. 09 à 21:56, Dave Thaler a écrit :
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.desp...@free.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 3:03 AM
To: Christian Huitema
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; Xing Li; 6man; Behave WG; Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: Perils of structured host identifiers (wa
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 07:28:31AM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:40:20PM +0530, Vijayrajan ranganathan wrote:
> > Is there a standard solution for this kind of problem?
>
> On some OSes it is possible to control the host part of the
> autoconfigured address by manually co
Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:
On 8 jul 2009, at 9:42, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
for example, suppose you want to run shim6 on the nat64 box, how
would you do it if you cannot use the lower 64 bits to store crypto
info?
So then you would have one NAT64 with two Prefix64s, where the CGA
p
On 8 jul 2009, at 9:42, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
for example, suppose you want to run shim6 on the nat64 box, how
would you do it if you cannot use the lower 64 bits to store crypto
info?
So then you would have one NAT64 with two Prefix64s, where the CGA
proves that Prefix64a and Pref
Iljitsch van Beijnum escribió:
On 7 jul 2009, at 22:21, Dave Thaler wrote:
CGAs are only useful when they're assigned to a host, not in the
address space of protocol A that represents the address space of
protocol B.
Disagree. I'm not sure it's a big deal, but I disagree it has
0 worth. CG
