> On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 08:24:13 +0200,
> "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> I find the language somewhat confusing. This is what I undestand the paragraph
>> to say:
> [...]
> Yes, this is what the paragraph means and I agree with Jinmei that we
> should include this
> I find the language somewhat confusing. This is what I undestand the paragraph
> to say:
[...]
Yes, this is what the paragraph means and I agree with Jinmei that we
should include this short note in rfc2462bis.
Jinmei: I think that Gerrit's rewording is a little clearer. If you
don't mind I wo
> On Mon, 31 May 2004 10:05:38 +0200,
> "Gerrit van Niekerk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I find the language somewhat confusing. This is what I undestand the paragraph
> to say:
> Note that it is possible that there is no router on the link in this
> sense, but there is a node that
I find the language somewhat confusing. This is what I undestand the paragraph
to say:
Note that it is possible that there is no router on the link in this
sense, but there is a node that has the ability to forward packets. In
this case, the forwarding node's address must be manually confi
> On Sat, 29 May 2004 12:22:13 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> Though I personally think the last sentence is too much in the scope
>>> of rfc2462bis. But I can live with either
>>>
>>> 1. do nothing on this in rfc2462bis,
>>> 2. add the above note without the "furt
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 08:26:57 +0200,
> "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> We might add a further notice on the suggested configuration:
>>
>> Thus, a node that has the ability of forwarding should be configured
>> to send router advertisements unless there is a stron
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 06:16:05PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
>
> I'm even not sure if the "multi-link subnet" or "ND-proxy" scenarios
> is ever related to the point I described...as far as I know, the host
> can still see router advertisements from a "router" in the sens
I agree thanks for your persistence on this highly discussed topic of these two bits
:---) WOW.
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of JINMEI Tatuya /
> Sent: Monday, May 24, 2004 7:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [rfc2
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 23:20:39 -0700,
> "Christian Huitema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Note that it is possible that there is no router on the link in this
>> sense but is a node that has the ability to forward packets. In
>> this case, hosts must be manually configured about the forwa
> I'm not sure if we need to take a particular action for this in
> rfc2462bis, but you may want to add a note like this in Section 5.5.2:
>
> Note that it is possible that there is no router on the link in this
> sense but is a node that has the ability to forward packets. In
> this case,
Hi Jinmei,
The proposed text is OK with me.
John
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 24 May, 2004 14:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [rfc2462bis] summary and proposal about
> Note that it is possible that there is no router on the link in this
> sense but is a node that has the ability to forward packets. In
> this case, hosts must be manually configured about the forwarding
> node's address to be able to send packets off-link, since sending
> r
> On Mon, 24 May 2004 14:15:19 +0200,
> "Christian Strauf (JOIN)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> 11. revise Section 5.5.2 as follows:
>>
>> Even if a link has no routers, stateful autoconfiguration to obtain
>> addresses and other configuration information may still be
>> available, and ho
Jinmei,
> Thanks for the feedback on this subject so far.
thank you for the comprehensive summary, it looks very good!
> 11. revise Section 5.5.2 as follows:
>
>Even if a link has no routers, stateful autoconfiguration to obtain
>addresses and other configuration information may still b
14 matches
Mail list logo
