JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:49:47 +0100,
> > Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> >> textual representation
> >> 2.2 (1) has to state how many digits are permitted as "x"
> >> (one component between colon). my personal prefer
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 11:49:47 +0100,
> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> textual representation
>> 2.2 (1) has to state how many digits are permitted as "x"
>> (one component between colon). my personal preference is that
>> "x" has to be 1 to 4 digits (5 digits or more is
> Kill NSAPs they are dead and gone.
I don't see how we can de-reserve the prefix. It might be time to ask
the IESG to reclassify RFC 1888 as Historic.
Brian (now off-line until Jan. 5)
"Bound, Jim" wrote:
>
> I support this nice concise report. Esp. that multicast is well defined
> and I a
ROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt
>
>
> > as an IAB i was asked to comment on
> draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt,
> > so here it is. happy holidays.
>
> one more ;-)
>
> itojun
>
>
> MINOR
> ==
I support this nice concise report. Esp. that multicast is well defined
and I agree. IPv4 Mapped "on the wire" should not be permitted ok as API
for 3493. Kill NSAPs they are dead and gone. ACK on compatible address
too.
Thanks
/jim
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailt
> IPv4 mapped address
> if I remember correctly draft-itojun-v6ops-v4mapped-harmful-02.txt
> (IPv4 mapped address on-wire is harmful) got enough consensus. please
> document that IPv4 mapped address is not permitted on wire, in 2.5.5.
That would seem inconsistent with the SIIT R
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> textual representation
> 2.2 (1) has to state how many digits are permitted as "x"
> (one component between colon). my personal preference is that
> "x" has to be 1 to 4 digits (5 digits or more is invalid).
I think an informative reference t
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:13:16 -0800,
> Fred Templin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Last I heard, Steve Deering had gone walkabout - but
> surely, he must have a new e-mail address by now?
Perhaps the best way is that someone who can contact Steve personally
asks him explicitly, but jus FYI
Last I heard, Steve Deering had gone walkabout - but
surely, he must have a new e-mail address by now?
Fred
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino wrote:
as an IAB i was asked to comment on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt,
so here it is. happy holidays.
one more ;-)
itojun
MINOR
> as an IAB i was asked to comment on draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-00.txt,
> so here it is. happy holidays.
one more ;-)
itojun
MINOR
=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is no longer valid, so you may want to remove it
from the draft.
--
10 matches
Mail list logo