As Daniel has also mentioned in another email, I do not believe that 16NG
can make a recommendation about when to use a specific CS for IPv6
transport. It depends on the deployment models and operators.
-Raj
On 11/17/08 2:06 PM, ext Brian E Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Teemu,
Well,
IPCS= IP Convergence Sublayer
On 11/14/08 5:22 PM, John Loughney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Daniel,
Could you explain what the IPCS abbreviation stands for?
thanks,
John
From: ext Daniel Park [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 November, 2008 01:20
To: Loughney John
the arguments that were the basis for it to be inserted do not apply
in many deployments (especially in networks which do not care about the
route-optimization feature).
-Raj
On 2/27/08 10:58 AM, ext Thomas Narten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basavaraj Patil [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree
I agree with Thomas about his views on IPsec being a mandatory and default
component of the IPv6 stack.
Because of this belief, Mobile IPv6 (RFC3775) design relied on IPsec for
securing the signaling. This has lead to complexity of the protocol and not
really helped either in adoption or
latching in IPsec which may help
to ease the load on the end devices, which seems to have been the main
issue raised.
Thanks,
Vishwas
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Basavaraj Patil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with Thomas about his views on IPsec being a mandatory and default
Alain,
In your deployment, you probably control the host as well and hence can
choose DHCPv6 as the only mechanism for address assignment. This works fine
in such an environment. But not in an environment where many different types
of hosts with different capabilities could attach to the
Hi Brian,
One of the tasks that the 6MAN WG is chartered for is : Shepherd
completion of standardization of RA Flags Option
Will this WG also standardize any new flags or options for the RA that are
currently being discussed?
The question arises from the work on specifying a flag/option in the
On 3/14/07 12:04 PM, ext James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basavaraj Patil writes:
On 3/14/07 11:14 AM, ext James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That issue is the exclusive use of IPv4 or IPv6 on Packet CS. Why
must it be exclusive? The first four bits of the datagram tell you
Alex,
On 3/14/07 12:52 PM, ext Alexandru Petrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
On 3/14/07 12:04 PM, ext James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basavaraj Patil writes:
On 3/14/07 11:14 AM, ext James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That issue is the exclusive use
Hi James,
Response inline:
On 3/14/07 11:14 AM, ext James Carlson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Basavaraj Patil writes:
A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at:
http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
I've read through the document as well
Alex,
On 3/14/07 11:47 AM, ext Alexandru Petrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Hello,
A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at:
http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
This revision incorporates changes based
Hello,
A slightly revised version of the I-D is now available at:
http://people.nokia.net/~patil/IDs/draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-09.txt
This revision incorporates changes based on some of the comments made by the
directorate. It will be submitted to the ID repository as soon as the gates
Hesham,
I like Jinmei's proposal of rejecting the issue as far as changing 2461bis
value goes. Because even the Max value of 2999 seconds is still not good
enough for some links.
So I think it is best to let IPv6 over foo specific documents specify what
router configuration variables are
Inline:
On 8/10/06 8:52 AM, ext Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm still trying to understand the problem :-)
Unless I missed an episode, the context is
connection-oriented cellular networks under IP
(whatever that means)
You say that the RA packets (unicasted) will
Hello Pars,
Response inline:
On 8/10/06 12:38 PM, ext Pars MUTAF [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Selon Basavaraj Patil [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Inline:
On 8/10/06 8:52 AM, ext Pars Mutaf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I'm still trying to understand the problem :-)
Unless I missed
Erik,
On 8/9/06 2:00 AM, ext Erik Nordmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Syam Madanapalli wrote:
eady dealing with dormant mode, but network layer
may be disturbing this mode; so the draft is proposing few changes to
the network layer.
Syam,
Is the link layer on the Access point/Base station
as well send a RTR solicitation to confirm
that it still is connected to the AR and be happy.
-Raj
What's wrong with that?
Thanks
pars
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 22:33 -0500, Basavaraj Patil wrote:
Hello,
The I-D:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-madanapalli-ipv6-periodic
Francis,
I am not sure I understand your argument that the issue of sending periodic
RAs should be handled at the link-layer.
If the network layer is going to send the periodic RA, how do you expect the
link layer to deal with it? This would break the behavior.
On 8/8/06 4:02 PM, ext Francis
Hello,
The I-D:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-madanapalli-ipv6-periodic-rtr-advt
s-00.txt
proposes several changes to ND procedures and parameters.
Pls review and comment.
-Raj
IETF IPv6 working group mailing
19 matches
Mail list logo
