Hi all,
Firstly, according to a minutes of the last shim6 meeting,
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/minutes/shim6.html
this issue of revising RFC3484 was passed to AD.
I want to know if this proposal was arranged by AD.
IMHO, these new functions look very effective and desirable
to solve ad
A couple of minor comments.
1. I wonder if it would be better to use the shim6 terminology "ULP"
(upper layer protocol) instead of "application." At least, I suggest
referring to it.
2. In section 3.2, I think you also need to say something about
SCTP. I presume that the interaction between 348
In your previous mail you wrote:
i agree this is a useful tool for multihomed environments (i have
included it in draft-bagnulo-shim6-addr-selection-00.txt) and i agree
that this should be detailed in a document related to initiating
communications in multihomed environments
How
Hi Francis,
thanks for your feedback
comments below...
El 05/12/2005, a las 10:46, Francis Dupont escribió:
In your previous mail you wrote:
Comments?
=> I have some comments:
- if the border router for X to A knows the outage it can deprecate
the A prefix and propagate the informat
In your previous mail you wrote:
Comments?
=> I have some comments:
- if the border router for X to A knows the outage it can deprecate
the A prefix and propagate the information. Note this idea was
described many time but as far as I know is *not* implemented
(if such basic idea
determine if
we need to generate a rfc3484bis to overcome the identified problems
Comments?
Regards, marcelo
Inicio mensaje reenviado:
De: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fecha: 1 de diciembre de 2005 21:50:02 GMT+01:00
Para: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Asunto: I-D ACTION:draft-bagnulo-ipv6-rfc3484-update-00
