All,
Based on the feedback received, the 6man chairs believe there is consensus
for 6MAN to work on creating a new type of IPv6 interface identifiers,
as described in draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01.
The discussion brought up some issues that we will work with the author to
resolve, i
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 03:33:07PM +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> I'm not exactly seeing overwhelming consensus, but the loudest
> virtual hum was for
>
>http://[fe80::a-en1]
>
> Advantage: allows use of browser.
> Disadvantage: doesn't allow simple cut and paste.
>
> There was a suggesti
On 2012-05-08 15:35, Ole Trøan wrote:
1) Leave the problem unsolved.
This would mean that per-interface diagnostics would still have to be
performed using ping or ping6
ping fe80::a%en1
Advantage: works today.
Disadvantage: less convenient than usi
On May 8, 2012, at 16:33, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> http://[fe80::a-en1]
Of the proposals that require changing RFC 3986, this is clearly the best one.
(My personal favorite is still hijacking IPvFuture, as in
http://[v6.fe80::a-en1], but I can understand when people don't like that.)
Grüße
>>> 1) Leave the problem unsolved.
>>>
>>> This would mean that per-interface diagnostics would still have to be
>>> performed using ping or ping6
>>>
>>> ping fe80::a%en1
>>>
>>> Advantage: works today.
>>>
>>> Disadvantage: less convenient than using a browswer.
>>>
>>> 2) Escaping the esca
I'm not exactly seeing overwhelming consensus, but the loudest
virtual hum was for
http://[fe80::a-en1]
Advantage: allows use of browser.
Disadvantage: doesn't allow simple cut and paste.
There was a suggestion to encourage a fix to ping (and traceroute?) to
allow the "-" separator, and we mu
On 2012-05-04 11:39, Ole Trøan wrote:
>> 1) Leave the problem unsolved.
>>
>> This would mean that per-interface diagnostics would still have to be
>> performed using ping or ping6
>>
>> ping fe80::a%en1
>>
>> Advantage: works today.
>>
>> Disadvantage: less convenient than using a browswer.
>>
>
Dave and Ray,
thanks for putting together regarding these points.
I'll compile these into the revision of DHCP option draft soon.
Thanks !
On 2012/05/05, at 15:40, Ray Hunter wrote:
> ACK. Thanks.
>
> Dave Thaler wrote:
>> I wrote in response to Ray Hunter:
>>> I take your comment as asking fo
Hi,
I know the WG last call has closed. But I reviewed it anyway and I have
found some nits and things which the WG chairs anyway will stumble on in
their ID checklist processing of the document. I also have some more
substantial comments on how this is written. I am sorry that I am late,
but I si
