Re: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines the prefixesallocated from different prefix pools

On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:31:46 +0800 Fortune HUANG fqhu...@huawei.com wrote: Hi Mark, I think it should be read like this: Some options would be extended from DHCPv6 to RA, and all those extensions might be in a single draft. Some or all of the DHCPv6 options doesn't matter - it's

RE: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines theprefixesallocated from different prefix pools

+1 I completely agree with what Mark said here. Barbara -Original Message- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Smith Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:16 AM To: Fortune HUANG Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: Question about SLAAC: how the host

Re: Question about SLAAC: how the host determines theprefixesallocatedfrom different prefix pools

On 6/11/10 1:09 AM, Fortune HUANG wrote: Hi Brian, I just have an idea to improve my previous solution. We can have two more parameter in RA. 1) Network Service Provider(NSP) ID: The value of this field is maintained by the IANA. And how does an end-host utilize the NSP ID? 2) Service

Re: New Version Notification for draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header-01

Hi Erik, On Jun 11, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Erik Nordmark wrote: On 06/10/10 12:31 PM, Jonathan Hui wrote: So a packet sent by R1 that will be forwarded outside of the ROLL network will have a outer IPv6 header whose destination is the BR? That is where we started. Draft-01 does have a line or

Consensus call for adoption of draft-hui-6man-rpl-option and draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header

All, This is a consensus call to determine if there is interest in having 6MAN adopt the two RPL drafts (draft-hui-6man-rpl-option and draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header). Please state your opinion on the mailing list by June 25th, 2010. Regards, Brian

RE: Consensus call for adoption of draft-hui-6man-rpl-option and draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header

+1 on adopting the two RPL drafts. Don -Original Message- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 1:17 PM To: IPv6 WG Mailing List Subject: Consensus call for adoption of draft-hui-6man-rpl-option and

Re: Consensus call for adoption of draft-hui-6man-rpl-option and draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header

Hi, I support the drafts too. Thanks, Vishwas On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Don Sturek d.stu...@att.net wrote: +1 on adopting the two RPL drafts. Don -Original Message- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman Sent: Monday, June

RE: Consensus call for adoption of draft-hui-6man-rpl-option anddraft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header

-Original Message- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian Haberman All, This is a consensus call to determine if there is interest in having 6MAN adopt the two RPL drafts (draft-hui-6man-rpl-option and draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header).

RE: Consensus call for adoption of draft-hui-6man-rpl-optionand draft-hui-6man-rpl-routing-header

+1 on adopting the two RPL drafts. And starting the work on the 3rd ! Pascal -Original Message- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Don Sturek Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 10:55 PM To: 'Brian Haberman'; 'IPv6 WG Mailing List' Subject: RE: