Re: [BEHAVE] RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix

Hi, thank you for insightful comments on this issue, all. I'll put some texts in the next version to note discussions about it. Best regards, On 2011/03/29, at 19:47, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Dan/Teemu(s)/Cameron, > I am afraid there is no single right answer here. There will be networks >

Re: question regarding draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-02 section 2.3

Hi, Mikael, Hemant, I think Mikael's concern is fair and it should be addressed clearer in this document. I agree that this rule is applicable when - SLAAC is used for address assignment. , or - DHCPv6 server/relay is used for address assignment and it's on the router sending RA. Also, I under

RE: [BEHAVE] RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix

Hi Dan/Teemu(s)/Cameron, I am afraid there is no single right answer here. There will be networks that will prefer NAT44 over NAT64 and those that prefer NAT64 over NAT44. For this reason, I think this is better left as a site-specific policy decision for distribution using a mechanism such as

I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-03.txt

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 : An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with RPL Author(s) : J. Hui, et al. Filename

I-D Action:draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-03.txt

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