Support option B.
-Raj
On 3/27/12 9:33 AM, ext Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
All,
The chairs would like to get a sense of the working group on
changing the current (defined 3484) model of preferring public addresses
over privacy addresses during the address selection
I support elevating the requirement for DHCPv6 on nodes to a SHOULD.
Bob's proposed text looks fine.
-Raj
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Bob
Hinden
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:56 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org;
On 5/13/11 1:56 PM, ext james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
On May 13, 2011, at 11:34 , Cameron Byrne wrote:
On May 13, 2011 11:28 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
Mobile hosts SHOULD implement DHCPv6 clients.
I wouldn't oppose elevating the requirement further still to say that
On 8/20/10 1:47 PM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
Sri Gundavelli sgund...@cisco.com writes:
Couple of comments on Section 9.0 (Mobility):
draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-05
1.) When Mobile IPv6 was designed, one important feature that made
into the protocol is the support for
Fred,
We are discussing IPv6 node-requirements and considering specifications that
are standards-track RFCs. There is no point in throwing out specs that are
individual I-Ds at this time (at least in the context of this discussion).
-Raj
On 8/20/10 2:23 PM, ext Templin, Fred L
Hi Thomas,
On 7/24/09 10:41 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
The document currently says:
8. Mobile IP
The Mobile IPv6 [RFC3775] specification defines requirements for the
following types of nodes:
- mobile nodes
- correspondent nodes with support for
