Hi all,
I had presented this draft in IETF 85 and received many comments from Dave
and Lorenzo.
I have tried to resolve the issues and published the revision as
draft-sarikaya-6man-rfc4191bis-00.txt
I would like to present the draft in Vancouver. Let's discuss the draft on
the list.
Please post
A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-6man-
rfc4191bis-00.txt
has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the
IETF repository.
Filename:draft-sarikaya-6man-rfc4191bis
Revision:00
Title: IPv6 RA Options for Next Hop Routes
Creation date: 2013
in a
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 03:18:06PM -0700, Mark Smith wrote:
Hi Behcet,
Thanks for your review and comments.
From: Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com
To: Dave Thaler dtha...@microsoft.com
Cc: Mark Smith markzzzsm...@yahoo.com.au; 6...@ietf.org
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Mark Smith markzzzsm...@yahoo.com.auwrote:
Hi Behcet,
Thanks for your review and comments.
From: Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com
To: Dave Thaler dtha...@microsoft.com
Cc: Mark Smith markzzzsm
am all for it.
Behcet
**
-- Christian Huitema
** **
** **
** **
*From:* ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf
Of *Behcet Sarikaya
*Sent:* Monday, April 1, 2013 8:33 AM
*To:* Mark Smith
*Cc:* mbo...@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org; Dave Thaler
*Subject:* Re
Hi Mark,
I read your draft.
First of all I think you misunderstood RFC 6085 and based on a wrong
assumption you developed your solution. I suggest you take a look at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-netext-pmipv6-shared-link-01
on Netext for PMIPv6.
I believe that we should use
A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the
IETF repository.
Filename:draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route
Revision:02
Title: IPv6 RA Options for Multiple Interface Next Hop Routes
Hi Dave, Lorenzo, all,
Thanks for the comments during 6man session this morning.
Can you please send your comments, possibly replying to this mail?
Regards,
Behcet
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Hi Dave, all,
Thanks for the comments during 6man session this morning.
Can you please send your comments, possibly replying to this mail?
Regards,
Behcet
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative
Hi Bob,
I would like to request a slot to present:
my draft on IPv6 RA Options for Multiple Interface Next Hop Routes at
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-mif-6man-ra-route-01
and also IPv6 RA Options for Translation Multicast Prefixes at
Hi Mikael,
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:08 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2012, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Comments about the idea in this draft? About the problem?
What is the rationale for duplicating the functionality in DHCPv6-PD into
ND? If code needs to be
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:09 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Dear all,
I'm initiating this thread in the hope of understanding the
objections from the 6man WG and hopefully to make some progress for
this document. To initiate the discussion, below are provided some
preliminary Q/A:
Please take a look at Page13~22 at
http://fud.no/talks/20120417-RIPE64-The_Case_for_IPv6_Only_Data_Centres.pdf
If a stateless translator maintains the binding information of
*src.IPv6-src.IPv4 address*, the essential feature of Does not
require flows to flow bidirectionally across a single
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Michael Richardson
mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Aleksi == Aleksi Suhonen aleksi.suho...@tut.fi writes:
Aleksi Within an hour, all the IPv4 addresses in the pool for our
Aleksi NAT64 were registered to this one device.
Do I understand that you attempt
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Michael Richardson
mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Aleksi == Aleksi Suhonen aleksi.suho...@tut.fi writes
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Simon Perreault
simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca wrote:
On 2012-07-09 14:41, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Cameron Byrnecb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Behcet Sarikayasarikaya2...@gmail.com
wrote:
It seems
Hi Brian,
I think that there is a lot of confusion on the mails related to this
tread and some others regarding IPv4 IPv6 multicast work.
The confusion is stemming from the fact that multicast communication
is being abstracted from unicast communication.
I can not imagine any host being
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM, RJ Atkinson rja.li...@gmail.com wrote:
I support publishing this as an Experimental status RFC
on the IETF track.
+1
Behcet
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
On 02/29/2012 11:38 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2012-02-28 08:12, Jeroen Massar wrote:
I was wondering, if anybody had a rough idea how many MLDv1-only
listeners are still out there in the wild. My assumption by now
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
I think the idea here is to use VIN as link layer id when assigning an
address/prefix to a host in the car. The host can provide such an id in DHCP
request message.
Regards,
Behcet
Dear all,
I fail to see why a VIN would be mapped to an IPv6 address as much as I fail
to see why a
of a vehicle, i.e., VIN, because
1) This breaks the layered architecture concept.
2) This causes security issues, especially location privacy.
For, the comments from Behcet, plz see inline.
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Behcet Sarikaya
behcetsarik...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think the idea
Replace DSL
with Broadband in the text below as
DSL Forum is now called
Broadband Forum.
Regards,
Behcet
- Original Message
From: Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net
To: Suresh Krishnan (QB/EMC) suresh.krish...@ericsson.com; IETF IPv6
Mailing
List ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Wed, October
- Original Message
From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 1:56:00 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt
One personal comment,
I
- Original Message
From: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List ipv6@ietf.org
Cc: Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 1:56:00 PM
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting draft-krishnan-6man-rs-mark-08.txt
One personal comment,
I
Hi Thomas,
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 Route Optimization. The
ability
I support adoption of this draft, I think it is needed.
Regards,
Behcet
- Original Message
From: Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Tue, August 10, 2010 1:08:26 PM
Subject: Consensus call on
Hi Suresh,
I think multicast advantage of RAs is lost in case of point to point links
anyways.
Regards,
Behcet
- Original Message
From: Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
To: Fortune HUANG fqhu...@huawei.com
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Fri, June 18, 2010
I agree with Alex's comments.
I think that flow label field in IPv6 header is IPv6 design's soft underbelly.
I can understand and appreciate Brian Carpenter's efforts on trying to resolve
this issue.
My suggestion for Mext (and Netext) usage is to assign the first 16 bits of the
flow label as
Using RFC 3697 instead of Traffic Selectors (draft-ietf-mext-binary-ts) has
been discussed in MEXT, here is a pointer:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mext/current/msg03327.html
I don't think MEXT opted for that kind of use, they want more generic flow
description.
BR,
Behcet
-
- Original Message
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: Behcet Sarikaya sarik...@ieee.org
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Fri, December 4, 2009 9:34:49 PM
Subject: Re: Proposal to change status of RFC 4038
Behcet,
You're still not giving any *reasons* why
Hello 6manners,
We are hearing the news that RFC 4038 has started to be used by app
developers for IPv6 transition. See recent softwire discussions.
There is concern that this is an informational RFC. I think that IETF can
reissue it as a BCP and 6man is probably the right place.
Regards,
Brian, in view of changing times, I do think that it is recommended to
republish this valuable RFC as a BCP, possibly with some small changes, so
starting with 4038bis.
--behcet
- Original Message
From: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
To: Behcet Sarikaya sarik
Folks,
MLD also requires link-local IPv6 source addresses, RFC 3810, Sec. 5:
All MLDv2 messages
described in this document MUST be sent with a link-local IPv6 Source
Address, an IPv6 Hop Limit of 1, and an IPv6 Router Alert option
[RFC2711] in a Hop-by-Hop Options header..
So no
34 matches
Mail list logo
