Hi, Allison,
Thanks so much for your feedback! -- Please find my comments in-line
On 01/23/2013 09:33 PM, Allison Mankin wrote:
> It is clearly valuable to call the community's attention to the "atomic
> fragment" in IPv6. This is an IPv6 datagram that is not actually
> fragmented, but has a
Transport Directorate review of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments
I've reviewed this document as part of the transport area directorate's
ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
primarily for the transport area directors, but ar
Hi,
was it a deliberate ommission that RFC6724 does not mention a precedence value
for the well-known NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96?
If a host has both IPv4 and IPv6 configured it should probably use the native
IPv4 connectivity to connect to the target instead of the translated
IPv6-to-IPv4 access.
