On 5 Apr 2013, at 16:55, Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I wonder whether homenet people consider that the prefix to be delivered
to a homenet could be longer than /64 (i.e. /65 or /66).
That would be considered a failure mode.
See 3.4.1 of the current homenet arch
On May 19, 2013, at 16:43 , Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
Other than the fix you suggested (it MUST be different for each network
interface simultaneously in use.), is there anything to be fixe in,
say, Appendix A?
I don't see why Appendix A needs to comprise an exhaustive list
Disclaimer: haven't read all the prior list discussion so don't know if this
duplicates some existing discussion.
I have some fundamental problems with this document as is.
I will concentrate on sections 1, 2, and Appendix B, being the
motivation/goals/justification,
as opposed to the
Hi, Dave,
This issue was debated more than a year ago, at the IETF Paris
timeframe. Since then, the wg adopted this document, and we went through
WGLC and IETF LC. So I'm not sure how it helps to raise this point again
and at this point in time.
That said, please let me try to clarify a few
Hi, James,
On 05/20/2013 02:33 PM, james woodyatt wrote:
Other than the fix you suggested (it MUST be different for each
network interface simultaneously in use.), is there anything to be
fixe in, say, Appendix A?
I don't see why Appendix A needs to comprise an exhaustive list of
all
