> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Simon Perreault
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 4:50 AM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering
> well-known NAT64 prefix
>
> From the h
.
2013/1/26 Dan Wing
> > -Original Message-
> > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> > Simon Perreault
> > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:50 AM
> > To: ipv6@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destinatio
> -Original Message-
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Simon Perreault
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:50 AM
> To: ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering
> well-known NAT64 p
> -邮件原件-
> 发件人: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Simon
> Perreault
> 发送时间: 2013年1月24日 17:50
> 收件人: ipv6@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering
> well-known NAT64 prefix
>
> Le 2013-01-23 22:05, Phi
Le 2013-01-24 11:42, Philipp Kern a écrit :
thanks for your reply and sorry to rehash an old topic. I appreciate any
pointers to mailing list discussions where this horse has already been
beaten to death. ;-)
No time to grep the archives, sorry. But as you can already see from
these few emails
Simon,
thanks for your reply and sorry to rehash an old topic. I appreciate any
pointers to mailing list discussions where this horse has already been
beaten to death. ;-)
am Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:50:04AM +0100 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> This has been discussed in BEHAVE numerous times. T
Le 2013-01-23 22:05, Philipp Kern a écrit :
was it a deliberate ommission that RFC6724 does not mention a precedence value
for the well-known NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96?
If a host has both IPv4 and IPv6 configured it should probably use the native
IPv4 connectivity to connect to the target instea
Hi,
was it a deliberate ommission that RFC6724 does not mention a precedence value
for the well-known NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96?
If a host has both IPv4 and IPv6 configured it should probably use the native
IPv4 connectivity to connect to the target instead of the translated
IPv6-to-IPv4 access.
