On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 00:28 +, Dave Thaler wrote:
> The bits in the interface identifier are not indicative of goodness or
> appropriateness or whatever.
Firstly, thanks for the extensive explanation.
I realise now that I was confusing two comparisons - the comparison of
an address with a pre
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Karl Auer
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 6:15 PM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: question about draft-ietf-6man-rfc3484bis-06.txt and
> CommonPrefixLen()
>
> A few days ago, I asked about t
On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 08:30 +0900, Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> In my understanding, there is no use to look at the interface id part
> also for source address selection as well as for destination address
> selection.
>
> DNS load balance issue is explicitly specified, because it is clear
> problem
Karl,
2012/7/29 Karl Auer :
> A few days ago, I asked about this draft as below. I haven't seen a
> response, but the question still seems fair.
>
>> I don't fully understand this change (from section Appendix B):
>>
>> 1. Changed the definition of CommonPrefixLen() to only compare bits
>>
Bob,
I agree that there is consensus to move this forward as PS. There
will be an IETF Last Call for the draft as a PS started after Vancouver.
Regards,
Brian
On 7/26/12 7:47 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
Brian,
In the two plus weeks since you sent this, I saw one email in support
and none is
