>> But then I have a related question: why is this document supposed to
>> be an Experimental RFC, rather than a Proposed Standard? I originally
>> thought it was because the spec is going to be standardized against
>> the 'design principle' as a special exception.
>
> At this point, I don't reme
Tatuya,
Hmm...I cannot find background information about the "design
principle" on the net, either. It may be just an misunderstanding of
mine, in which case, yes, the above concern is resolved (I might then
propose a DHCPv6 server address RA option:-).
Feel free :-)
But then I have a relat
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:18:06 -0700,
> Bob Hinden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> So,
>> + I'd first like to confirm whether my understanding about the
>> 'design principle' is correct. If it's wrong, then I'm fine and
>> this concern will be resolved.
> I don't remember any ND design prin
Tatuya,
On Jun 29, 2006, at 9:52 PM, ext JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Resending to the list with the source address that appears to be
expected (the original message seems to have been filtered)...
This time I'm also copying the ipv6 list. In fact, [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be
more suitable plac
Resending to the list with the source address that appears to be
expected (the original message seems to have been filtered)...
This time I'm also copying the ipv6 list. In fact, [EMAIL PROTECTED] would be
more suitable place for discussions on this proposal, since it's an
extension to ND.
