Hi Suresh,
> Will do. Would a simple statement e.g. that it is a null terminated text
> string be sufficient or did you want more details?
There's no need for it to be NUL-terminated. In fact that's asking for trouble
because what do you do if the NUL and the field length don't match?
What app
On Nov 10, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I support this change.
+1.
-shane
> Regards
> Brian Carpenter
>
> On 2011-11-11 06:00, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> This email starts a one week 6MAN Working Group last call for adding text
>> and a reference to RFC6437 "IPv6 Flow Label Spe
Yes, thanks !
-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Hui [mailto:jon...@cisco.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:58 AM
To: Reddy, Joseph
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option questions
Hi Joseph,
It is not actually required to use tunneling if the RPL router knows
I agree that an update should be done prior to publishing the Node
Requirements draft, but I have some issues with the language (not the
intent) proposed below...
On 11/2/11 10:50 PM, john.lough...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi all,
There has been some discussions whether or not we should add support f
I support this change.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-11-11 06:00, Bob Hinden wrote:
> This email starts a one week 6MAN Working Group last call for adding text and
> a reference to RFC6437 "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" to the Node
> Requirements bis document current in AUTH48 state. The
Hi Joseph,
It is not actually required to use tunneling if the RPL router knows that the
destination is within the same RPL Instance. But if the router does not know
for sure, then it must use tunneling. Just after sending my proposed text, I
had modified the cited portion to the following:
Marshall,
Thanks very much.
Bob
On Nov 10, 2011, at 9:17 AM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
> I will be glad to be jabber scribe, except during any presentation I might
> give
>
> Marshall
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We still need a minute taker and jabbe
Hi Jonathan
Thanks for the clarifiction.
In your proposed new text, you state
"...Routers MUST use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as
specified in [RFC2473] to include a new RPL Option in datagrams that
are sourced by other nodes..."
Actually, isnt it true that this action ( use of tunnelling to
I will be glad to be jabber scribe, except during any presentation I might give
Marshall
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We still need a minute taker and jabber scribe for the 6man session in Taipei.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
>
>
> --
Hi Richard,
On Nov 10, 2011, at 8:14 AM, Richard Kelsey wrote:
> In section 4, "Router Behavior" draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option
> says:
>
> Routers MUST use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as specified in
> [RFC2473] to include a new RPL Option in datagrams that
> are sourced by other nodes.
>
> Wha
This email starts a one week 6MAN Working Group last call for adding text and a
reference to RFC6437 "IPv6 Flow Label Specification" to the Node Requirements
bis document current in AUTH48 state. The document is currently on hold in the
RFC Editor waiting for resolution of this issue.
The pr
Hi,
We still need a minute taker and jabber scribe for the 6man session in Taipei.
Thanks,
Bob
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
In section 4, "Router Behavior" draft-ietf-6man-rpl-option
says:
Routers MUST use IPv6-in-IPv6 tunneling, as specified in
[RFC2473] to include a new RPL Option in datagrams that
are sourced by other nodes.
What destination should be used for the tunnel header? The
router adding the RPL
- Original Message -
> From: Arifumi Matsumoto
> To: François-Xavier Le Bail
> Cc: "ipv6@ietf.org"
> Sent: Wednesday, November 9, 2011 12:56 AM
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484-revise-05.txt
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your suggestion.
>
> , and also we should also menti
14 matches
Mail list logo
