I do not support this work. It seems ill conceived and unnecessary.
If there are needs for new extension headers, they should be presented. If the
data must be carried as an extension header, then specific new extension
headers should be defined for those code points.
Tony
On Dec 20, 2010,
Hi Chad,
On 10-12-17 03:02 PM, Chad Kissinger wrote:
Hello,
We are deploying IPV6 to our customers and are carefully planning the
architecture of how we are going to deploy prefixes, assign customer
gateways and how we are going to number our own infrastructure in a
meaningful way. Al
Hi Authors,
I read this draft and I had some comments
* Section 3
The "Segments Left" field has the following definition
"Value MUST be between 0 and Segments, inclusive."
and it is unclear to me what it means. Can you clarify?
* Section 4.2
The algorithm for calculating the total number o
Hi Authors,
I went through draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-01 and I had some comments.
* Section 2
This text is not consistent with the option type request in section 3
"and that ICMP errors return to the RPL Option source rather than ..."
The option type in section 3 (Top two bits 01) will not r
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 : The Line Identification Destination Option
Author(s) : S. Krishnan, et al.
Filename:
I support this work and would like to see this progressed.
Kam
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:15 AM, wrote:
> 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
