I support adopting this draft as a WG document.
Regards,
Fortune
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 7:14 PM
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Consensus call on adopting:
I support this becoming a WG doc.
-shane
On Jul 27, 2010, at 19:14 GMT+02:00, Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
As noted in today's session of 6MAN, the chairs are soliciting
input on adopting:
Title : Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484 Revision
Author(s) : A. Matsumoto, et
I agree with Dave Thaler from yesterday's discussion in 6man related to
the /127 draft. In the two router scenario for /127, each router is
off-link to the other and then one has nothing to bother about for
anycast address. Folks are also encouraged to read the IPv6 Subnet
Model RFC where
I support adopting this.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 27, 2010, at 7:56 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Brian Haberman
As noted in today's session of 6MAN, the chairs are soliciting
input on adopting:
Title : Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484
I support the adoption of this draft.
-Woj.
From: Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net
Date: 2010年7月28日 02:14:03JST
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Consensus call on adopting: draft-arifumi-6man-rfc3484-revise-03.txt
All,
As noted in today's session of 6MAN, the
I support this becoming a WG item.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Shane Amante sh...@castlepoint.net wrote:
I support this becoming a WG doc.
-shane
On Jul 27, 2010, at 19:14 GMT+02:00, Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
As noted in today's session of 6MAN, the chairs are soliciting
input
I support this too.
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Shane
Amante
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:23 PM
To: Brian Haberman
Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Re: Consensus call on
I agree with Dave Thaler from yesterday’s discussion in 6man related to the
/127 draft. In the two router scenario for /127, each router is off-link to
the other and then one has nothing to bother about for anycast address.
Folks are also encouraged to read the IPv6 Subnet Model RFC where
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:ichiroumak...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ole Troan
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:40 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78
my view is entirely different.
the 64 bit
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole
Troan
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 10:40 AM
To: Hemant Singh
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Dave Thaler
Subject: Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78
I agree with Dave Thaler from
All,
the place and time is fixed for the bar-bof.
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/BarBofsIETF78
We welcome everyone to drop by.
20:00-21:30
Multihoming with multiple prefixes without NAT66 : Implementation of
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66. Live
Hi,
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:42:56 -0500
Hemant Singh (shemant) shem...@cisco.com wrote
I agree with Dave Thaler from yesterday's discussion in 6man related to
the /127 draft. In the two router scenario for /127, each router is
off-link to the other and then one has nothing to bother about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I support this.
Seiichi
Brian Haberman wrote:
All,
As noted in today's session of 6MAN, the chairs are soliciting
input on adopting:
Title : Things To Be Considered for RFC 3484 Revision
Author(s) : A. Matsumoto, et al.
Dave,
my view is entirely different.
the 64 bit boundary is a suggested policy and not normative.
That's not true. RFC 4291 is the addressing architecture and normatively
states:
For all unicast addresses, except those that start with the binary
value 000, Interface IDs are
-Original Message-
From: Matsuzaki Yoshinobu [mailto:m...@iij.ad.jp]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 11:14 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; dtha...@windows.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78
To establish an external-BGP session on a link
Hi,
The draft is discussing about inter-router backbone link, where
directly-connected neighbor has a significant meanings from routing protocol
point of view. So it needs to be assumed on-link.
Miya
Sent from my iPhone
On 28 juil. 2010, at 18:56, Hemant Singh (shemant) shem...@cisco.com
Lucy,
On Jul 28, 2010, at 13:58 GMT+02:00, Yong Lucy wrote:
What is flow label usage?
IMO: it enforces that a set of packets with the same flow label has to be
carried through the networks in the same path or belong to the same
application at host. Is that correct?
That appears to be a
Tina,
On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe that It's more acceptable for the majority of the different camps.
One of the problems with this idea is that it makes the sub-fields to small to
be useful.
Bob
Lucy,
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Yong Lucy wrote:
What is flow label usage?
IMO: it enforces that a set of packets with the same flow label has to be
carried through the networks in the same path or belong to the same
application at host. Is that correct? Is there other usage of
Bob,
I understood. But this is one of the best compromises so far.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 28, 2010, at 2:27 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Tina,
On Jul 28, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe
-Original Message-
From: Miya Kohno [mailto:mko...@juniper.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2010 12:15 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Matsuzaki Yoshinobu; ipv6@ietf.org;
dtha...@wollive.windowsmedia.com.akadns.net
Subject: Re: 6man discussion on /127 document @ IETF78
The draft is
Hi,
On 07/28/10 13:24, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe that It's more acceptable for the majority of the different
camps.
I hated it. :-(
I feel that changing the structure of the IPv6 header like that at this
stage is too late. And I
Comments in line.
B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
On Jul 28, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Aleksi Suhonen wrote:
Hi,
On 07/28/10 13:24, Tina TSOU wrote:
I like the proposal from Pascal Thurbert in today's meeting.
I believe that It's more acceptable for the majority of the
Hi,
The draft is discussing about inter-router backbone link, where
directly-connected neighbor has a significant meaning from
routing protocol point of view. So it needs to be assumed on-link.
Even if the two routers are in the off-link model for the IPv6 address
and RA configuration, the
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:58 PM, Yong Lucy wrote:
What is flow label usage?
IMO: it enforces that a set of packets with the same flow label has to be
carried through the networks in the same path or belong to the same
application at host. Is that correct? Is there other usage of flow label?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Brian Haberman
br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 7/28/10 6:49 PM, Christopher Morrow wrote:
(can we call the question in a clean/new email about adoption pls?
There was interest in the room for same.)
That is what I said I would do as soon as the
26 matches
Mail list logo
