Brian,
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Brian Haberman wrote:
This is an update based on feedback received on the list and via
private e-mail. Please review and comment. I would still like to
solicit input on WG adoption.
Not sure what was the conclusion here, but I gave it a q
Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Brian Haberman wrote:
>> This is an update based on feedback received on the list and via
>> private e-mail. Please review and comment. I would still like to
>> solicit input on WG adoption.
>
> Not sure what was the conclusion here, but I gave it
On Thu, 19 Apr 2007, Brian Haberman wrote:
This is an update based on feedback received on the list and via
private e-mail. Please review and comment. I would still like to
solicit input on WG adoption.
Not sure what was the conclusion here, but I gave it a quick a read.
My main comment
The RA flag space needs to be extended. Hence I support the adoption of this
I-D as a WG doc.
One of the immediate requirements for a flag is for Proxy MIP6 as I
explained in :
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg07266.html
-Raj
On 4/19/07 9:00 AM, "ext Brian Haberman" <[EMA
Brian Haberman wrote:
IPv6 WG, This is an update based on feedback received on the list and
via private e-mail. Please review and comment. I would still like
to solicit input on WG adoption.
My previous comment on the draft (this option is only for RA, not all
NDP) was included. I support W
IPv6 WG,
This is an update based on feedback received on the list and via
private e-mail. Please review and comment. I would still like to
solicit input on WG adoption.
Regards,
Brian
Original Message
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-haberman-ipv6-ra-flags-option-01.txt
Date: W
