Kerry,
On 2012-04-29 23:50, Kerry Lynn wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
> brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the IETF 83 discussion of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00,
>> there was no clear consensus on the approach to pursue. In fact,
>> almost the s
On 4/29/12 5:54 AM, Somasundaram Selvaraj wrote:
All
I went through RFC 4861 and found the section on "Neighbor
Unreachablity Detection" to be of less signifance especially on the
links between Router.
Did you read the text in section 7.3 which says
Neighbor Unreachability Detection may
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the IETF 83 discussion of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00,
> there was no clear consensus on the approach to pursue. In fact,
> almost the same discussion occurred around draft-fenner-literal-zone
>
All
I went through RFC 4861 and found the section on "Neighbor Unreachablity
Detection" to be of less signifance especially on the links between Router.
Reason is that, while there are failure detection protocols already
available to detect a liveliness of the neighbor I dont understand
effectiv
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 08:54:16AM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the IETF 83 discussion of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00,
> there was no clear consensus on the approach to pursue. In fact,
> almost the same discussion occurred around draft-fenner-literal-zone
> several years ago, bu
Hi,
In the IETF 83 discussion of draft-ietf-6man-uri-zoneid-00,
there was no clear consensus on the approach to pursue. In fact,
almost the same discussion occurred around draft-fenner-literal-zone
several years ago, but at that time the topic was simply dropped.
This note summarises the main opt
