Ron, et. Al:
I made a similar observation to Mike's about the amount of overlap between the
drafts in v6ops this AM
(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg17431.html)
So how does draft-taylor-v6ops-fragdrop fit into this ? And for that matter,
draft-andrews-6man-fragopt?
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nalini
Elkins
I suppose what I am thinking is that since there are no IETF Police, then the
only teeth there are in the standards is the ability to say this is not
compliant. That is not a trivial thing. People pay
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Simon Perreault
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering
well-known NAT64 prefix
From the host's point of view, you don't know
From: renum-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:renum-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Teco Boot
Op 20 nov. 2012, om 18:24 heeft Stig Venaas het volgende geschreven:
IP-Specific configuration
What about IP configuration for dynamic IP addresses?
[WEG] I'm not keen on that nomenclature because it's
Responding to a couple of different things below inline with [WEG]
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Usman
Latif
If you choose to do this, it is further recommended that you reserve the
entire /64 so that - if needed in the future - you can expand this
Read and support.
Thanks,
Wes
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Bob Hinden
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 1:28 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org Mailing List
Cc: Bob Hinden
Subject: 6MAN WG Last Call:
Adding 6man, since the RFCs referenced are from that working group.
Speaking as the author of 6547, which I wrote to fix the fact that 6164 didn't
formally obsolete 3627 when it changed IETF's guidance on the matter, I didn't
know about the other RFCs that cited 3627 regarding the use of /127s,
Not going to comment on the proposed protocol change itself yet, but this draft
is missing something that I think is fundamentally gating to it moving forward –
To provide a support for
multiple hash *algorithms, a method of reusing the security parameter
bits in the address is
This is simply a name-change to reflect WG adoption. All feedback that I've
received was addressed in the revision of draft-george-6man from 00 to 01, so I
believe that this document is ready for WGLC. Chairs, if you agree, could you
please put forward the formal LC?
support
Thanks,
Wes
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Bob Hinden
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 12:00 PM
To: 6man Mailing List
Cc: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; Ralph Droms
Subject: Working Group last call for adding
a completed
algorithm to detect looped back NS(DAD) messages in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hsingh-6man-enhanced-dad-01
[WEG]] It is also worth noting that the authors of draft-asati are working to
incorporate some elements of that draft into the one that Hemant mentions
above, and a
Support adoption
Thanks,
Wes
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 1:06 PM
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: Consensus call on adopting: draft-lynn-6man-6lobac
All,
This is
move it along on the
list if possible.
Thanks
Wes
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George,
Wes
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 3:22 PM
To: 6man
Subject: FW: New Version Notification for draft-george-6man-3627-historic-00.txt
.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-george-6man-3627-historic-00
Thanks,
Wes George
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 3:15 PM
To: George, Wes
Cc: George, Wes
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-george-6man
A (possibly stupid) question occurred to me today -
Why doesn't RFC6164 formally update RFC3627? As it stands, this either
clarifies the existing guidance in 3627 or obsoletes it, but only includes 3627
as an informative reference. I don't remember there being much discussion about
this
using or not using
a /127 on their PtP link. Is it actually forbidden to update an informational
RFC with a standard's track one?
Thanks
Wes
From: Miya Kohno [mailto:mko...@juniper.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 10:15 AM
To: George, Wes; 6man
Subject: RE: RFC6164 and 3627
Hi Wes
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Roland Bless
but there are similar reasons for using ULAs:
- They are not intended to be routed in the Internet
- They use a well-known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site
boundaries.
WEG] from the below it sounds like the first item isn't always
With no disrespect intended to the authors...
I agree that there is no universally accepted name for an IPv6 address part,
but IMO IETF and this WG has much larger things to be
concerned with than how to name IPv6 address parts, and adopting a document
like this makes it seem like we have
+1 - this articulates my concerns and what I'd like to see done to resolve.
Wes George
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of John
Leslie
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 7:27 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; RJ Atkinson
Subject:
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Narten [mailto:nar...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2011 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: Flow label drafts updated
Is the UDP port number mutable? Is the TCP sequence number immutable?
[WEG] I think both are immutable because there's a checksum to detect changes.
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Flow label drafts updated
and also the apparent decision to write these documents in a manner
intended to legislate reasonable security measures (if
In general, I support advancement of this draft, since it is largely
documenting an existing practice, but I think that Mark brings up a few
points that should be incorporated as clarification in the draft. More
comments below inline
Wes George
-Original Message-
From:
From: Randy Bush [mailto:ra...@psg.com]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 11:04 AM
To: George, Wes E [NTK]
Cc: Miya Kohno; Mark Smith; 6man Mailing List
Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-prefixlen-p2p-00.txt
the list of things which are orthogonal or out of scope is exceedingly
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christian Huitema
Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-krishnan-6man-header-reserved-bits-00.txt
But then, waiting for the traffic to increase and the load
balancing needs to materialize also makes a
-Original Message-
From: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com]
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-krishnan-6man-header-reserved-bits-00.txt
I strongly support the load-balancing use of the flow label. The
question is how many bits
support
Thanks,
Wes George
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Brian Haberman
Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 12:39 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Call for Adoption:draft-kohno-ipv6-prefixlen-p2p-03.txt
All,
I am
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 9:19 PM
To: 6man
Subject: Flow label (im)mutability
Hi,
The authors of draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update (now also
including Shane Amante) are
draft-blake-ipv6-flow-label-nonce-02 is expired and I haven't heard much effort
to push it forward again. IMO it would be more helpful to consider security
implications and evaluate your solution with
draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03,
draft-donley-6man-flowlabel-transport-sig-00, etc in
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shane
Amante
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
Because of your last two bullets I have to ask the following. How would a
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Shane
Amante
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:00 PM
To: George, Wes E [NTK]
Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); 6man 6man; m...@sandelman.ca; Mohacsi Janos;
Tony Hain
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits
-Original Message-
From: Tina TSOU [mailto:t...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:42 AM
To: George, Wes E IV [NTK]
Cc: Aleksi Suhonen; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Flow Label: 12 bits mutable and 8 bits immutable
So you mean either we solve the issue of checksum, or we rather
-Original Message-
From: Mark Smith [mailto:i...@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2010 3:28 AM
To: George, Wes E IV [NTK]
Cc: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
Subject: Re: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
Sorry for the (very) late
.
Thanks
Wes George
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of George,
Wes E IV [NTK]
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 5:03 PM
To: Brian E Carpenter; 6man
Subject: RE: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
-Original Message
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E
Carpenter
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 9:11 PM
To: 6man
Subject: [Fwd: I-D Action:draft-carpenter-6man-flow-update-03.txt]
Secondly, it offers the WG a binary choice as the main decision:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christopher Morrow
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: router vs. host discussion in 6man today for the /127 draft
it also seems, to me at least, that there are a few involved ops
35 matches
Mail list logo
