Jinmei-san - thanks for your review...
On Jul 24, 2013, at 2:21 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 jtat...@infoblox.com wrote:
I have a couple of comments on the draft:
- I think the draft explains the motivation of introducing the new
scope. It will also help understand the vague term of the
+1
So subnet is not the right term. I think network as Ralph wrote is
fine but if the disassociation with network addressing needs to be
clear, why not use the term domain? After all, trickle-mcast talks
about MPL Domains. I appreciate it may have some pre-established
connotations but from
- Original Message -
From: Robert Cragie robert.cra...@gridmerge.com
To: r...@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Roll] trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 -
subnet-local
+1
So subnet is not the right term. I think
I support advancing the proposal.
--
Brian
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
Wrong file name in the Subject line.
Bob
-
All,
This message starts a two week 6MAN Working Group on advancing:
Title : Transmission of IPv6
I would still like an explanation of why subnet is the wrong term.
When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to the set
of links on which a /64 (or other size) is used?
--
Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca, Sandelman Software Works
pgpsplhkiOMCD.pgp
On Jul 24, 2013, at 4:58 PM 7/24/13, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
I would still like an explanation of why subnet is the wrong term.
When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to the set
of links on which a /64 (or other size) is used?
Hm, I
At Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:19:15 +0200,
Ralph Droms rdroms.i...@gmail.com wrote:
I have a couple of comments on the draft:
- I think the draft explains the motivation of introducing the new
(I meant the draft should explain...)
scope. It will also help understand the vague term of the
I think the document is ready to go. Good that we finally can
close the eternal u g bit mess.
For the open issue in Section 7. I am also in favour
of retaining the reserved IID registry.
Then one or two nits. In Section 5. where changes to RFC4291 are
listed I wonder why those new pieces of
Ralph Droms (rdroms) rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
I would still like an explanation of why subnet is the wrong term.
When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to
the set
of links on which a /64 (or other size) is used?
Hm, I thought I responded but
Hi Ulrich,
I did review the you cited in your earlier e-mail (RFC 5889). It seems
that RFC suggests that link local addresses not be generated for
interfaces with undetermined link characteristics (which certainly apply
to route over protocols like ROLL RPL and the MANET protocols).
However,
On 22 Jul 2013, at 10:01, Shwetha Bhandari (shwethab) shwet...@cisco.com
wrote:
Hello,
A new draft draft-lepape-6man-prefix-metadata-00 describing
a method for applications to learn and influence source address selection by
associating
IPv6 prefixes with meta-data when configured by
On 25/07/2013 04:31, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
I think the document is ready to go. Good that we finally can
close the eternal u g bit mess.
For the open issue in Section 7. I am also in favour
of retaining the reserved IID registry.
Then one or two nits. In Section 5. where changes to
12 matches
Mail list logo
