On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 11:56:56 -0400, Patrik Lahti wrote:
> Thanks Hagen,
My pleasure!
> Do I understand correctly then that it's essentially something that
> should be configurable and that there are practical reasons for needing
> to have the ability to configure it?
If your or any other en
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:20:15 +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2010-07-16 03:56, Patrik Lahti wrote:
> ...
>> If so, what is your (and others') opinion on whether it should be
>> configurable per ND message type? And/or should DSCP be copied from the
>> invoking packet?
>
> My opinion is that
On 2010-07-16 03:56, Patrik Lahti wrote:
...
> If so, what is your (and others') opinion on whether it should be
> configurable per ND message type? And/or should DSCP be copied from the
> invoking packet?
My opinion is that this is 100% an implementation & deployment issue
that doesn't require di
On 10-07-08 06:40 PM, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
* Patrik Lahti | 2010-07-07 13:55:17 [-0400]:
I'm of the opinion that IPv6 Neighbor Discovery packets are important
to keep the network functioning and perhaps should be classified as
network or internetwork control packets and be prioritized
ac
Hello The Community,
We submit this draft (below) to propose large flow classification in IPv6.
This classification can enable differentiated flow-based-routing over ECMP,
which can improve the load balance.
Look forward to talking this subject with the group in Maastricht.
Regards,
Lucy
--
Hi Mark:
A new ND registration model is being developed at 6LoWPAN to enable a
proactive population of the ND cache - table, really -. Applying the ND
registration to the P2P link case, the endpoint routers would need to
register to one another prior to delivering packets on that link. Any
packet
