Re: TSV-DIR review of draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-atomic-fragments-03

2013-01-24 Thread Joe Touch
FWIW, this document includes text that somewhat defeats the previous recommendations of TCPM regarding RFC5927. RFC5927 includes specific text indicating that the techniques described are being documented, but that the TCP standard was NOT being changed to include those ICMP validation checks.

Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-ipv6-smurf-amplifier-02.txt

2013-01-24 Thread Fernando Gont
Folks, FYI, we have updated our I-D in response to the recent discussion on the mailing list. The new rev is available at: Any further comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Best regards, Fernando

答复: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering well-known NAT64 prefix

2013-01-24 Thread Xuxiaohu
> -邮件原件- > 发件人: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Simon > Perreault > 发送时间: 2013年1月24日 17:50 > 收件人: ipv6@ietf.org > 主题: Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering > well-known NAT64 prefix > > Le 2013-01-23 22:05, Philipp Kern a écrit : > > was it

Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering well-known NAT64 prefix

2013-01-24 Thread Simon Perreault
Le 2013-01-24 11:42, Philipp Kern a écrit : thanks for your reply and sorry to rehash an old topic. I appreciate any pointers to mailing list discussions where this horse has already been beaten to death. ;-) No time to grep the archives, sorry. But as you can already see from these few emails

Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering well-known NAT64 prefix

2013-01-24 Thread Philipp Kern
Simon, thanks for your reply and sorry to rehash an old topic. I appreciate any pointers to mailing list discussions where this horse has already been beaten to death. ;-) am Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:50:04AM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben: > This has been discussed in BEHAVE numerous times. T

Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering well-known NAT64 prefix

2013-01-24 Thread Simon Perreault
Le 2013-01-23 22:05, Philipp Kern a écrit : 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 instea