This rev includes the fixes discussed and agreed to in the 6man WG meeting on
7/29:
* Added text to section 1 citing draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast as an example
case for the redefinition of scop 3
* Changed the definition of scop 3 to:
3 Realm-Local scope
* Added a paragraph, based on the
Michael...
On Jul 24, 2013, at 6:37 PM 7/24/13, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
Ralph Droms (rdroms) rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
I would still like an explanation of why subnet is the wrong term.
When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to the
set
On Jul 25, 2013, at 4:07 PM 7/25/13, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
Ralph Droms (rdroms) rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
Ralph Droms (rdroms) rdr...@cisco.com wrote:
I would still like an explanation of why subnet is the wrong term.
When would scope-3 would be used
On Jul 24, 2013, at 4:58 PM 7/24/13, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
I would still like an explanation of why subnet is the wrong term.
When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to the set
of links on which a /64 (or other size) is used?
Hm, I
(BCC: 6man mailing list, which is where this document is intended to become a
work item)
On Jul 11, 2013, at 10:14 PM 7/11/13, Michael Richardson
mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
The most recent rev of draft-droms-6man-multicast-scopes defines scope
0x03 as:
3 Network-Specific scope,
This draft proposes to redefine IPv6 multicast scope 0x03 from reserved to
Network-Specific scope, greater than Link-Local scope, defined automatically
from the network topology. The expectation is that mesh trickle multicast, as
defined in draft-ietf-roll-trickle-mcast, will define multicast
Comment about DHCPv6 question in line...
- Ralph
-Original Message-
From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 11/22/2006 4:51 AM
To: Scott W Brim; General Area Review Team; Jari Arkko; Mark Townsley
(townsley); Bob Hinden; Brian Haberman; Thomas Narten; Erik Nordmark;
]]
Sent: Thu 8/24/2006 11:51 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: Re: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
If we're to compare, I'd compare the ICMPv6-PD effort with the RA
option
to carry DNS Server effort. If things are to evolve
.
- Ralph
-Original Message-
From: Rao Satyanarayana-W60007 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thu 8/24/2006 12:33 PM
To: Petrescu Alexandru-AAP021; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List; Bernie Volz (volz)
Subject: RE: Prefix Delegation using ICMPv6
Thanks, Alex.
We too think
