Thank you very much for replying to my message.
I have copied the 6man mailing list into the reply, plus your original
mail is attached below, as you requested, so as to involve a larger
community in the discussion.
Yes. You have a humble opinion that ISATAP is equivalent to native IPv6
and
On 08 May 2011, at 19:06 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Maybe it's just the use of the word immutable that is causing the
problem here, because it implies something that physically isn't true.
I think that is a very very important part, possibly the
central element, of this discussion. This is
On 08 May 2011, at 19:47 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But it's really playing with words to assert that a firewall which
chooses to overwrite the field is supporting it in the sense
intended by the phrase Hosts or routers that do not support the
functions of the Flow Label field
It is not
At Fri, 06 May 2011 13:48:19 -0400,
Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
I'm not entirely sure what to do here. RFC 4191 is not widely
implemented, AFAIK. It's in Windows Vista (and onwards) and also
Linux. Not sure where else (I'm guessing not on Macs?)
(I'm not sure if the following
Hi Ran,
On 2011-05-10 01:02, RJ Atkinson wrote:
On 08 May 2011, at 19:06 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Maybe it's just the use of the word immutable that is causing the
problem here, because it implies something that physically isn't true.
I think that is a very very important part, possibly
Hi again Ran,
On 2011-05-10 01:10, RJ Atkinson wrote:
On 08 May 2011, at 19:47 , Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But it's really playing with words to assert that a firewall which
chooses to overwrite the field is supporting it in the sense
intended by the phrase Hosts or routers that do not
Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2011-05-10 01:02, RJ Atkinson wrote:
A much more reasonable approach would be to say (edit to taste):
The Flow Label SHOULD NOT be changed in transit.
The authors really need to hear that from more than one person, or to
Thomas,
My personal observation, if it's implemented in Windows Vista WIn7, Linux,
BSD, (and probably Macs), then this sounds like widely implemented. This plus
Ole's use scenario, leads me to think it should be a SHOULD.
Bob
On May 9, 2011, at 12:58 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
At
My personal observation, if it's implemented in Windows Vista
WIn7, Linux, BSD, (and probably Macs), then this sounds like widely
implemented. This plus Ole's use scenario, leads me to think it
should be a SHOULD.
I could probably go with a SHOULD.
But, I wonder if we are living in the
Thomas,
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
My personal observation, if it's implemented in Windows Vista
WIn7, Linux, BSD, (and probably Macs), then this sounds like widely
implemented. This plus Ole's use scenario, leads me to think it
should be a SHOULD.
I could probably
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other electronic
devices?
When they start implementing IPv6 at all...
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
Can someone explain to me the rationale for mandating 4191 in 6204?
What was the scenario that was envisioned that necessitates 4191?
it was the only way we found to keep support for ULA prefixes. the
scenario is if you have a home CPE with ULA enabled, but no upstream
IPv6 connectivity.
On May 9, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other
electronic devices?
When they start implementing IPv6 at all...
iOS and Symbian appear to do IPv6 pretty well. I think
On May 9, 2011 6:26 PM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other
electronic devices?
When they start implementing IPv6 at
On May 9, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other
electronic devices?
When they start implementing IPv6 at all...
iOS and Symbian appear to do IPv6 pretty well. I think
On Mon, 9 May 2011, Bob Hinden wrote:
iOS and Symbian appear to do IPv6 pretty well. I think iOS is ahead of
MacOS as it get's updated more often. Not sure about Android, Win7
phone, and the others.
Android 2.3.4 actually has GUI options to configure IPv6 APN, but we have
yet to find a
16 matches
Mail list logo
