Hi Barbara,
Thank you very much for your comment. I am glad to see that you agree with
that it would be more logical to do all prefix-related configuration in RA.
But yes, you are right that we need to prove what we have is insufficient or
broken before we change the existing implementation. I onc
Hi Suresh,
I think multicast advantage of RAs is lost in case of point to point links
anyways.
Regards,
Behcet
- Original Message
> From: Suresh Krishnan
> To: Fortune HUANG
> Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org"
> Sent: Fri, June 18, 2010 9:24:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Question about SLAAC: how the
> Do you think that the service type of
> the prefix should be classified to the prefix related configuration or
not?
> If yes, do you agree that it should be carried in RA in the stateless
> case?
Nobody is disagreeing that *if* we could turn the clock back 10 years or
so and have a greenfield di
Hi Fortune,
I have to agree with Brian, Mark and Doug here. SLAAC was conceived
for use in simple scenarios. The scenario you are describing is a bit
more complex. I think it calls for DHCPv6.
On a purely technical note, since the prefixes come from different pools
it is no longer possible
snipped
> > Text:
> >
> > It might be possible to make this classifier stateless, by using a
> >
> > suitable modulo(N) hash of the inner IP header's 5-tuple as the
> >
> > pseudo-random value.
> >
> >
> >
> > The document text uses N in referring N paths. It causes a confusion in
> >
Lucy,
On 2010-06-16 09:46, Yong Lucy wrote:
> Brian and Shane,
>
>
>
> I read the draft. It is well written. Here are some comments:
...
> Two paragraphs are the same except one has "hash SHOULD" and another has
> "hash MUST".
Oops.
>
>
>
> Text:
>
> It might be possible to make this
