I support this action and the proposed text.
Sheng
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> john.lough...@nokia.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:51 AM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Flow Label support in the Node Requiremen
I support this (and the proposed text), as long as it doesn't cause
more than three or four weeks' delay.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-11-03 15:50, john.lough...@nokia.com wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> There has been some discussions whether or not we should add support for the
> Flow Label in
> S
Hi all,
There has been some discussions whether or not we should add support for the
Flow Label in
Soon to be RFC 6434 As a straw man
proposal, if we add
Support, I would suggest the following text:
All nodes SHOULD support RFC 6437, IPv6 Flow Label Specification,
defines the IPv6 Flow Label.
Bob Hinden wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>> The new flow label proposed standard is here, as well as
>> the rationale document (RFC 6436) and the ECMP/LAG proposed
>> standard (RFC 6438).
>>
>> This document formally updates RFC 2460 and says that every IPv6
>>
Brian,
I agree this is a good idea. is recently
entered AUTH48 so this may be possible. I doubt we are going to update
node-requirements again for a while, so it would be good to do it now.
The first step is to see if anyone on the list disagrees with this approach.
Comments?
I have asked
Resending to the correct 6-man WG list email address
6-man WG,
During the IESG review of draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation
it was noted that the IPv6 elements of this draft would
benefit from a review by the 6-man working group.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-l2vpn-arp-mediation/
Plea
