I think the title should be changed to something like Line
Identification Destination Option as it is proposing to create a new
destination option and uses tunneling. In other words, it is no
longer adding line identification to RS messages.
makes sense. but should not be a prereq for wg
Maybe this draft should say something about what happens if the 3 router
solicitations sent by the host are lost.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests:
Hi Philip,
On 10-10-22 10:06 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
Maybe this draft should say something about what happens if the 3 router
solicitations sent by the host are lost.
Certainly. We have added Section 5.3 to version -08 of the draft to
account for the case where the host-initiated RSs are
Hi Philip,
On 10-10-22 10:25 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:08:15 -0400 you wrote:
On 10-10-22 10:06 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
Maybe this draft should say something about what happens if the 3 router
solicitations sent by the host are lost.
Certainly. We
In your letter dated Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:45:57 -0400 you wrote:
But now I'm a bit confused. Given that the AN now has to ability to originat
e
RS messages, why is it forwarding the end-device' RS at all? Is that only to
support SEND?
Exactly. The ability to send host-initiated RSs through is
Correction: The consensus call will end on October 28, 2010.
Bob
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
6MAN WG,
This is a consensus call on adopting:
Title : Line identification in IPv6 Router Solicitation
messages
Author(s) :
Hi Philip,
On 10-10-22 11:01 AM, Philip Homburg wrote:
In your letter dated Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:45:57 -0400 you wrote:
But now I'm a bit confused. Given that the AN now has to ability to originat
e
RS messages, why is it forwarding the end-device' RS at all? Is that only to
support SEND?
Yes. There is certainly sufficient interest in the WG on this topic.
On 10/21/2010 2:46 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
6MAN WG,
This is a consensus call on adopting:
Title : Line identification in IPv6 Router Solicitation
messages
Author(s) : S. Krishnan, et al.
Hi,
This document updates Section 3 of [RFC2460] to reduce the length of
the flow label field from 20 bits to 16 bits, and in the process
creating a 4 bit reserved field.
OK, that's clear enough...
1. I do think that the justification in the draft for such a major change,
after 12
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 : RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in Data-Plane
Datagrams
Author(s) : J. Hui, J. Vasseur
Hi,
I am not sure whether its correct to ask this question here,
I am facing difficulty understanding RFC 2460 Section 4.2 and also Appendix
B.
To be particular below are my doubts:
1. Xn+y meaning the Option Type must appear at an integer multiple
of x octects from the start of
11 matches
Mail list logo
