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:
Aleksi Within an hour, all the IPv4 addresses in the pool for our
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 8:03 AM, Pars Mutaf pars.mu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote:
Lixia,
The original note says I think it is possible to locate the node we
need.
So, the idea is apparently not to divide the
On Sep 28, 2011 11:26 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 9/28/11 19:09 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
It's too bad computer science is not a science, or we would actually
look at the past, and this mistakes that were
On Sep 27, 2011 6:49 AM, Christopher Morrow christopher.mor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu
wrote:
Hi,
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where
On Jul 3, 2011 6:13 PM, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote:
I'd agree wholeheartedly with deprecating them both! But this draft
expired some months ago - what are its chances?
i was discouraged by bob from submitting it. dreadine approacheth.
should i?
Yes, please
Cb
randy
On May 13, 2011 11:28 AM, james woodyatt j...@apple.com wrote:
On May 13, 2011, at 09:28 , Timothy E. Enos wrote:
Just as some environments may require the use of DHCPv6, some
environments may not.
Mobile hosts SHOULD implement DHCPv6 clients.
I wouldn't oppose elevating the requirement
On May 9, 2011 6:26 PM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:37 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
On May 9, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Thomas Narten wrote:
When are we going to start counting cell phones, tablets and other
electronic devices?
When they start implementing IPv6 at
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 6:20 AM, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com wrote:
Hi,
I discussed shortly with Arifumi about RFC3484 default policy table updates
and NAT64 WKP, i.e. whether the default policy table should take a stand on
64:ff9b::/96 preference.
It seemed to us that default policy
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Teemu Kiviniemi tekiv...@csc.fi wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, teemu.savolai...@nokia.com wrote:
I discussed shortly with Arifumi about RFC3484 default policy table
updates and NAT64 WKP, i.e. whether the default policy table should take a
stand on 64:ff9b::/96
On Mar 9, 2011 11:34 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian E Carpenter
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:49 AM
To: Mikael Abrahamsson
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Ran Atkinson
Subject: Re:
On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Narten nar...@us.ibm.com wrote:
The document currently says:
Routers MUST support the assignment of /127 prefixes on point-to-
point inter-router links.
I fully support this.
However, I believe that as far as routing is concerned, IPv6 continues
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 15/04/2010 07:55, Parav Pandit a écrit :
Hi,
As per RFC 2464, Link local address for Ethernet based interfaces
are based on the EUI-64 (derived from the MAC address).
Right, that is probably a very
12 matches
Mail list logo
