Re: Draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 to become asap a 6man WG draft ?

Suresh Krishnan wrote: Hi Remi, On 10-04-16 05:44 AM, Rémi Després wrote: Hi all, Thanks to James for the pointer to draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08. I don't know exactly what the status of draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 is today, but it this proposal has IMHO to become quickly a standard-trac

Re: Draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 to become asap a 6man WG draft ?

On 4/16/10 4:28 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Apr 16, 2010, at 12:43, Suresh Krishnan wrote: >> >> As James chimed in, we let the draft expire because there was no >> clear consensus in the WG as to the need to define new extension >> headers. We have addressed all the comments received from the

Re: Draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 to become asap a 6man WG draft ?

On Apr 16, 2010, at 12:43, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > > As James chimed in, we let the draft expire because there was no clear > consensus in the WG as to the need to define new extension headers. We have > addressed all the comments received from the WG in the last version the > draft. We can re

Re: RFC 4861:-Link-Local address joining all-node multicast group.

Hi Alex, On 10-04-16 12:00 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: Le 16/04/2010 17:11, Suresh Krishnan a écrit : 1) MLD join for the solicited node multicast address from the unspecified address (to test for the uniqueness of the tentative link-local address). 2) MLD join for the solicited node multicas

Re: Draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 to become asap a 6man WG draft ?

Hi Remi, On 10-04-16 05:44 AM, Rémi Després wrote: Hi all, Thanks to James for the pointer to draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08. I don't know exactly what the status of draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 is today, but it this proposal has IMHO to become quickly a standard-track RFC: - The ability of s

Re: Draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 to become asap a 6man WG draft ?

On Apr 16, 2010, at 02:44, Rémi Després wrote: > > I don't know exactly what the status of draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 is > today, but it this proposal has IMHO to become quickly a standard-track RFC: The draft was presented most recently at IETF-72 Dublin. >From the minutes

Re: deriving MAC address from destination Link local address without Neighbor discovery

Please fine inline response. Parav --- On Fri, 4/16/10, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > From: Suresh Krishnan > Subject: Re: deriving MAC address from destination Link local address without > Neighbor discovery > To: "Parav Pandit" > Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org" > Date: Friday, April 16, 2010, 5:46 AM > Hi

Re: RFC 4861:-Link-Local address joining all-node multicast group.

Le 16/04/2010 17:11, Suresh Krishnan a écrit : Hi Niviya, On 10-04-16 04:18 AM, niviya vijayan wrote: Hi , I have a query regarding the interface initialization process for an ipv6 enabled interface. As per the RFC4861, the node has to join a. All-node multicast address{FE02::1} b. Solicite

Re: RFC 4861:-Link-Local address joining all-node multicast group.

Hi Niviya, On 10-04-16 04:18 AM, niviya vijayan wrote: Hi , I have a query regarding the interface initialization process for an ipv6 enabled interface. As per the RFC4861, the node has to join a. All-node multicast address{FE02::1} b. Solicited multicast address {FF02::1:

Draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 to become asap a 6man WG draft ?

Hi all, Thanks to James for the pointer to draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08. I don't know exactly what the status of draft-krishnan-ipv6-exthdr-08 is today, but it this proposal has IMHO to become quickly a standard-track RFC: - The ability of skipping an extension header in a node that doesn't kno

RFC 4861:-Link-Local address joining all-node multicast group.

Hi , I have a query regarding the interface initialization process for an ipv6 enabled interface. As per the RFC4861, the node has to join a. All-node multicast address{FE02::1} b. Solicited multicast address {FF02::1:ff00:} I have tried capturing packets for one of the switch