On 06/17/10 19:31, Fortune HUANG wrote:
Hi Doug,
Please note that "Fortune HUANG wants it to be that way" has never
been used as any kind of reason in this discussion by myself.
Actually that's the only justification you've provided so far.
so please respond to my reason as you quoted below
Hi Doug,
Please note that "Fortune HUANG wants it to be that way" has never been used
as any kind of reason in this discussion by myself.
I also assume you are not using that "Doug doesn't want it to be that way"
as a valid reason not to take up the project, so please respond to my reason
as yo
On 06/17/10 17:39, Fortune HUANG wrote:
Since the service type of the prefix should be classified to the
prefix related configuration, it should be carried in RA
... and what Mark, myself, and everyone else who have +1'ed our
statements is saying is that "Fortune HUANG wants it to be that way"
Hi Mark,
{Mark: You cannot use DHCPv6 only - RAs are essential for announcing one or
more routers availability onto a link.}
Right. What I meant was you can use DHCPv6 without RA to allocate the prefix
for some scenarios if you think it is perfect.
As I said before, we are not going to re-invent
Brian and Shane,
I read the draft. It is well written.
Here are some comments:
Text:
o At intermediate router(s) that perform ECMP or LAG for packets
whose source address is a TEP, the hash SHOULD minimally include
the triple {dest addr, source addr, flow label} to
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 : An uniform format for IPv6 extension headers
Author(s) : S. Krishnan, et al.
Filename
Brian and Shane,
I read the draft. It is well written. Here are some comments:
Text:
o At intermediate router(s) that perform ECMP or LAG for packets
whose source address is a TEP, the hash SHOULD minimally include
the triple {dest addr, source addr, flow label} to meet
Hi Fortune,
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:02:08 +0800
Fortune HUANG wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I think DHCPv6 and RA fit in different scenarios. If DHCPv6 without RA is
> perfect for some scenario, just use it.
You cannot use DHCPv6 only - RAs are essential for announcing
one or more routers availability
