link established by the PDP Context. This needs to
be corrected in the draft.
- Jouni
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
On Jul 24, 2013, at 11:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 25/07/2013 04:31, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
I think the document is ready to go. Good that we finally can
close the eternal u g bit mess.
For the open issue in Section 7. I am also in favour
of retaining
of text do not use RFC2119
language. I recon RFC4291 does not use RFC2119 language but still
this is going to be a new RFC that itself refers and uses RFC2119
language.
- Jouni
On Jul 19, 2013, at 1:11 AM, Bob Hinden bob.hin...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
This message starts a two week 6MAN Working
a proper selection.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-yegin-dmm-ondemand-mobility-00
Great, good to know.
- JOuni
Regards,
Alper
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https
a recommendation
about next steps.
- Jouni
(hmm.. where this conservative me came from ;-)
2) We do maintenance of widely-implemented, widely-deployed protocols.
So I'm not sure why we should be scared about changing stuff in v6
(particularly when we're still at a point in which the v6 traffic
On Feb 4, 2013, at 7:48 PM, Fernando Gont fg...@si6networks.com wrote:
On 02/04/2013 12:45 PM, Jouni Korhonen wrote:
On 02/04/2013 06:42 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
In this respect, changing now the IPv6 specification for hosts that
configure IIDs having u=1, although no serious need has
/obsoleted accordingly and with care. On this aspect I
care about specification correctness - not whether something is actually
deployed (yet).
- Jouni
randy
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative
Hmm.. how would this work with RFC5453 reserved IID space we already
have for anycast addresses?
- Jouni
is that they must be unique within the scope of a given link and
routing prefix.
then perhaps we could move forward. Today, the u and g bits are the
only ones that make the previous
addresses that have I/G set to 1 and U/L set to 0, which makes me rather
uncomfortable with IETF using u=g=1 for their own purposes.
- Jouni
bits of the Interface Identifier. There were some concerns raised in
softwire about whether such addresses are actually compatible with the
IPv6
Remi,
On Dec 12, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi, Jouni,
2012-12-12 10:04, Jouni Korhonen jouni.nos...@gmail.com :
Hi,
On Dec 8, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
wrote:
Hi all,
The 4rd draft (http
detail
understanding.
Thanks again for your comments on the cellular network usage regarding
efficient-nd.
And of course I am willing to help if/when needed.
- Jouni
-Samita
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6
the
I-D aims for a standards track document. If there is one, I am happy to see it
documented.
- Jouni
-Samita
On Nov 22, 2012, at 2:04 AM, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
Hello All:
As a follow-up from the IETF85 6man meeting presentation on
Efficient-nd draft, we have posted
Hi Samita,
On Nov 28, 2012, at 5:34 AM, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
Hi Jouni,
Please the response in-line.
-Original Message-
From: jouni korhonen [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 6:54 AM
To: Samita Chakrabarti
Cc: 6man Mailing List; Bob Hinden
it comes to ND
traffic. To me what to I-D proposes introduces more ND traffic than there is
today. Or am I missing something fundamental here?
- Jouni
On Nov 22, 2012, at 2:04 AM, Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
Hello All:
As a follow-up from the IETF85 6man meeting presentation on Efficient-nd
for reading the draft. All input is always appreciated.
- Jouni
Zhenqiang Li Ph. D.
13911635816
Department of Network Technology
China Mobile Research Institute
2010-03-04
15 matches
Mail list logo
