Dear all,
We prepared a new version which lists the changes to be added to RFC 3956, RFC
3306 and RFC 4607:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-01
We are interested to hear your feedback on the proposed changes and also on the
better approach to actually do
Dear all,
The content of draft-ietf-6man-multicast-addr-arch-update-00 is the same as
what we had in draft-boucadair-*.
We would like to prepare a new version. If you have any comment, suggestion,
etc., please share it on the list or direct you mail to Stig an myself.
Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
Dear Tina,
Thank you for reviewing the draft and for your support.
The draft does only extend the definition of already reserved bits to be also
treated as flags. In addition, the draft provides some clarifications for the
use of flag bits (including both the old and the extended ones). The
Dear Mark,
Thanks for the comments.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Mark ZZZ Smith [mailto:markzzzsm...@yahoo.com.au]
Envoyé : samedi 13 octobre 2012 01:16
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN; Ray Hunter
Cc : 6...@ietf.org; BINET David OLNC/OLN
Objet : Re:
Dear Ran,
Thank you for sharing your point of view.
The points raised by Ray Hunter are good ones. I tried to provided further
explanation here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg16435.html. I hope that
answer solves some of your concerns.
Cheers,
Med
-Message
Dear Ray,
Thank you for the comments.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net]
Envoyé : vendredi 5 octobre 2012 21:45
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
Cc : 6...@ietf.org
Objet : Re: draft-boucadair-6man-sip-proxy-01
I have read
Dear all,
Comments are more than welcome.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] De la
part de internet-dra...@ietf.org
Envoyé : jeudi 4 octobre 2012 09:12
À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Objet : I-D Action:
Dear all,
Comments are more than welcome.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] De la
part de internet-dra...@ietf.org
Envoyé : jeudi 4 octobre 2012 09:12
À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org
Objet : I-D Action:
Dear all,
FYI, a new version of this draft has been edited to take into account comments
received in mboned ML.
The main changes in -04 are as follows:
o Indicate the draft update RFC3306 as suggested by T. Chown. We
didn't added a note about rfc3956 as we are defining a bit
Dear Bob,
The main changes in -03 are as follows:
* Abandon the M-bit idea to represent IPv4-embedded IPv6 multicast prefix
* Explain the rationale for selecting a /96 (SSM) and /20 (ASM)
* Reserve two prefixes to be used for the algorithmic translation of an IPv6
multicast address into an
Hi Behcet,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : mardi 14 août 2012 18:40
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : ipv6@ietf.org; Jacni Qin;
draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-for...@tools.ietf.org;
Stig
Dear Suresh,
I checked the new version and see it does not implement what has been agreed
here:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg15996.html
Is there any particular reason for not adding that change?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De :
Dear Suresh,
Having the warnings in the draft is good but having a pointer to a document
including a fair and detailed risk analysis is also valuable and worth to be
acknowledged.
Having that pointer is an invitation to people who will deploy this mechanism
(I know some of them who are
Dear all,
Many thanks for the individuals who read the draft and provided some comment.
My read of the the answers received in this thread is there is no strong
reasons to question the design choices as documented in the draft.
FWIW, I just submitted a updated version taking into account the
Dear Bob,
Yes, I read that message. It is one of reasons I added two appendixes to
explain:
* Why an Address Format is Needed for Multicast IPv4-IPv6 Interconnection?
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format-02#appendix-A.1)
* Why Identifying an IPv4-Embedded
Dear Brian,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Brian Haberman [mailto:br...@innovationslab.net]
Envoyé : jeudi 10 mai 2012 20:03
À : Lee, Yiu
Cc : Carsten Bormann; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP;
mbo...@ietf.org; 6...@ietf.org; The IESG;
apps-disc...@ietf.org
Dear Carsten,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Carsten Bormann [mailto:c...@tzi.org]
Envoyé : mercredi 9 mai 2012 20:21
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc :
draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format@tools.ietf.or
g; apps-disc...@ietf.org
Dear Cartsen,
The algorithm to extract the embedded IPv4 address is as follows:
If the multicast address belongs to ff3x:0:8000/33 or ffxx:8000/17, extract the
last 32 bits of the IPv6 address.
Are you suggesting to add such clarification to the address format I-D?
Cheers,
Med
-Message
Dear Carsten,
Thank you for the review.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Carsten Bormann [mailto:c...@tzi.org]
Envoyé : dimanche 6 mai 2012 22:58
À :
draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format@tools.ietf.or
g; apps-disc...@ietf.org application-layer
Dear all,
During the IETF LC for draft-ietf-mboned-64-multicast-address-format, Brian
suggested to use the remaining flag instead of reserving ff3x:0:8000/33 (SSM)
and ffxx:8000/17 (ASM) blocks. FYI, we have considered that approach in an
early version of the document but it has been abandoned
Dear Roberta,
Apologies for the delay to answer this e-mail.
The deployment scenarios we have in mind are the same as for the DNS RA option:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-dns-options-bis-08#section-1.1. This
RA option is meant to provide an default IPv6 route for IPv4-in-IPv6
Dear all,
FYI, we have submitted this new I-D.
Comments, critiques, suggestions and questions are more than welcome.
As mentioned in the draft, the provisioning of the AFTR is a very sensitive for
the delivery of the IPv4 connectivity when DS-Lite is enabled. Any failure to
provision such
22 matches
Mail list logo
