On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Well, I object to drawing anyone's attention to the Appendix of
2460, which is explicitly not part of the standard. And I think
that the main text in 2460 is underspecified, whereas RFC 3697
has proved to be plain confusing. And we don't yet have clea
>> "Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement either
>> MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]."
>
> Is there a short (less than one page) description of the difference
> between RFCs 3810 and 5790? One that actually explains what the
> implementation differences are
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> On 2011-02-22 01:28, John Leslie wrote:
>> Pekka Savola wrote:
>>
>>> Section S 5.1 already has a MUST requirement for supporting RFC2460.
>>> RFC2460 main body and appendix describe the behaviour for assigning
>>> flows at the originating node. This was made more s
On 2011-02-22 01:28, John Leslie wrote:
> Pekka Savola wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 2011-02-18 21:55, Pekka Savola wrote:
>>>
The document is silent on Flow Label (as Brian mentioned). Rather than
silence, I might be tempted to say something at least fr
All,
The WG chairs' deadline for agenda requests passed two weeks ago.
We received one exactly one request for time and that request was
conditioned on the state of ongoing discussions. We will accept any
additional requests for an agenda slot (conforming to the guidelines
below) until
> "Nodes that need to join multicast groups SHOULD also implement either
> MLDv2 [RFC3810] or Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790]."
Is there a short (less than one page) description of the difference
between RFCs 3810 and 5790? One that actually explains what the
implementation differences are?
Thomas
Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>On 2011-02-18 21:55, Pekka Savola wrote:
>>
>>> The document is silent on Flow Label (as Brian mentioned). Rather than
>>> silence, I might be tempted to say something at least from the current
>>> perspective. The key point h
On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 20:31 +1030, Mark Smith wrote:
> Karl Auer wrote:
> > Does anyone know if (and if so in what way) RFC2526 is honoured in the
> > real world?
> >
> >"The construction of a reserved subnet anycast address depends on the
> >type of IPv6 addresses used within the subnet,
Hi Karl,
On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:29:54 +1100
Karl Auer wrote:
> Does anyone know if (and if so in what way) RFC2526 is honoured in the
> real world?
>
> It's standards track, dating from 1999, but I'm not sure I've seen
> anyone avoiding the stipulated reserved addresses. Addresses generated
> b
Does anyone know if (and if so in what way) RFC2526 is honoured in the
real world?
It's standards track, dating from 1999, but I'm not sure I've seen
anyone avoiding the stipulated reserved addresses. Addresses generated
by SLAAC from a MAC address may well have some of the last seven bits
set, fo
Hi,
I have a comment about the description of MLD version in the node
requirement draft;
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-07
In MBONED WG, the Lightweight MLDv2 [RFC5790] that simplifies the
protocol spec of MLDv2 is published as the proposed standard RFC.
Hence I recommend
11 matches
Mail list logo
