It's fine.
Barbara
-Original Message-
From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of steve.dot...@cox.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 4:01 PM
To: f...@cisco.com; v6...@ietf.org; i...@ietf.org
Cc: i...@core3.amsl.com
Subject: Re: [v6ops]Fwd: I-D
Do you think that the service type of
the prefix should be classified to the prefix related configuration or
not?
If yes, do you agree that it should be carried in RA in the stateless
case?
Nobody is disagreeing that *if* we could turn the clock back 10 years or
so and have a greenfield
+1
I completely agree with what Mark said here.
Barbara
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Mark Smith
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:16 AM
To: Fortune HUANG
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Question about SLAAC: how the host
Frank,
Yeah, I think that after the bloody simple-security debates of the past
week, that many are amazed that anyone on this list was able to miss the
carnage. Anyway, the current CPE router draft has the following security
requirements in section 4.4:
S-1: The IPv6 CE router SHOULD support
