Hi Tim and Shree,
I am not sure if the policy table is applicable for selection of the
prefixes allocated from different prefix pools for different service types,
because the service type is a kind of property of each prefix, while the
Policy Table is a longest-matching-prefix lookup table, much
We have updated both draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header as well as
draft-hui-6man-rpl-option-header based on feedback from Anaheim as
well as discussions on the ML.
Summary of changes:
- Specify a maximum size for header/option so that it is possible to
avoid MTU issues within a RPL
Hi Jonathan,
I just skimmed through the draft. Just one major comment the first one
and other comments:
1. Is there a reason if the RH is added by a router not the initiator
we do not add the IP-in-IP tunnelling? I do not see a problem with
adding that and it just simplifies decapsulation of the
Hi Viswhas,
Thanks for the comments again.
On Jun 9, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Vishwas Manral wrote:
I just skimmed through the draft. Just one major comment the first one
and other comments:
1. Is there a reason if the RH is added by a router not the initiator
we do not add the IP-in-IP
I have re-reviewed this document now that Bob passed it on to me for
submission to IESG and IETF level reviews.
I found three remaining issues:
1) RFC 1035 should be moved to be a normative reference.
2) The encoding of DNS search lists is underspecified:
Domain Names of DNS Search
On Jun 9, 2010, at 19:37, Jonathan Hui wrote:
The case where IP-in-IP tunneling is not needed is if the RPL router itself
originates a packet. In a LLN network, it is common for RPL routers to
originate datagrams as they often serve as application end-points as well.
Jonathan,
do we know
Hi Jari,
I reflected your comments with 03-version I-D that will be submitted
if you are satisfied with the changes:
- 03-version I-D:
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~jjeong/publications/ietf-internet-draft/draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis-03.txt
- Difference between 02-version I-D and 03-version
Paul,
Thanks for the very quick turnaround on the changes! The changes look
good to me. Please submit the document.
Jari
Jaehoon Paul Jeong kirjoitti:
Hi Jari,
I reflected your comments with 03-version I-D that will be submitted
if you are satisfied with the changes:
- 03-version I-D:
The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Maintenance WG (6man) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS Configuration RFC 5006-bis '
draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis-02.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Maintenance Working Group of the IETF.
Title : IPv6 Router Advertisement Options for DNS
Configuration RFC 5006-bis
Author(s) : J. Jeong, et al.
Just as FYI, the document was updated and can now be reached from here:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis-03.txt
Jari
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative
Carsten,
On Jun 9, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Carsten Bormann wrote:
do we know how to compress this IP-RH4-IP-UDP stack?
(The first IP header compresses reasonable well; I'm worrying about
the second.)
Or did RPL just become a lot less useful in a LoWPAN with hosts?
Section 4.2 of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
