Dear 6man!
My name is Radek Wrobel, I'm writing from Poland (I'm working in Wroclaw
University of Technology, Division of Car Vehicles and Combustion Engines).
With this idea I wrote to IANA and Leo Vegoda redirected me to you.
Vehicle / mechanic engineers are working on a new On Board Diagnosis
make sense
-Hui
2011/3/29 Suresh Krishnan
> 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
>
Folks,
At the 6man wg meeting, the aforementioned I-D was deemed "as a very bad
idea", because of its privacy implications.
My question is: what's the trust model that leads to that conclusion?
I mean, a host doing SLAAC trusts the router about the prefix to be
configured, default route, various
In your letter dated Wed, 30 Mar 2011 00:15:03 +0900 you wrote:
>So, the description of this rule should be like:
>
>If the implementation can know and manage the coupling of a next-hop and a pre
>fix
>delegated from it, then the corresponding prefix should be chosen as the sourc
>e address.
>For e
Got it. Thanks.
jari
Brian Haberman kirjoitti:
Jari & Ralph,
On behalf of the 6MAN WG, the chairs request the advancement of:
Title : RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in
Data-Plane Datagrams
Author(s) : J. Hui, J. Vasseur
Filename : draft-ietf-6
Jari & Ralph,
On behalf of the 6MAN WG, the chairs request the advancement of:
Title : An IPv6 Routing Header for Source Routes with RPL
Author(s) : J. Hui, et al.
Filename : draft-ietf-6man-rpl-routing-header-03.txt
Pages : 19
Date : 2011-03-29
as a Pr
Jari & Ralph,
On behalf of the 6MAN WG, the chairs request the advancement of:
Title : RPL Option for Carrying RPL Information in
Data-Plane Datagrams
Author(s) : J. Hui, J. Vasseur
Filename : draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option-03.txt
Pages : 14
Date
