> On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 19:17:47 -0400,
> "Manfredi, Albert E" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> (I would personally not use this type of "semi-auto" manual
>> configuration in this case though).
> Don't know about semi-auto. "Manual configuration" is a perfectly
> clear way of explaining that y
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B>
(B> >> Another point. Any reason why autoconfiguration with DAD
(B> is not possible even if N is > 118? Maybe this was already discussed.
(B>
(B> Hmm, perhaps your point is something like this:
(B>
(B> if N is > 118, simply use the rightmost 118bits of the
> On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 12:53:37 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Another point. Any reason why autoconfiguration with DAD is not possible even if N
>> is > 118? Maybe this was already discussed.
> I'm not really sure about the pointfirst, this is only related to
>
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 15:03:37 -0400,
> "Manfredi, Albert E" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Thus, I'd now rather be more concrete on this. My latest proposal to
>> this part is as follows:
>>
>> A link-local address is formed by prepending the well-known link-
>> local prefix FE80::0/10 [R
> -Original Message-
(B> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(B
(B[ ... ]
(B
(B> Thus, I'd now rather be more concrete on this. My latest proposal to
(B> this part is as follows:
(B>
(B>A link-local address is formed by prepending the well-known link-
(B>local prefix FE80::0/10 [RFC
The proposed text looks ok to me as well.
(B
(BRegards,
(BBrian
(B
(BOn Sep 3, 2004, at 7:08, JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H(B wrote:
(B
(B>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:47:15 +0200 ,
(B>> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
(B>
(B>> It is certainly true that this is one o
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:47:15 +0200 ,
> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> It is certainly true that this is one of the things that is least likely to
> change.
> Let's go with your latest update (in this mail)..
Okay, thanks!
JINMEI, Ta
Title: RE: new rev. of rfc2462bis will be coming
OK
It is certainly true that this is one of the things that is least likely to change.
Let's go with your latest update (in this mail)..
Reagrds,
elwyn
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[E
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:57:36 +0200 ,
> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Getting the wording right without creating double maintenance is a problem.
> The point is that an address prefix only specifies the (prefix length) left
> most bits. RFC3513 has examples with essentially
Title: RE: new rev. of rfc2462bis will be coming
Getting the wording right without creating double maintenance is a problem.
The point is that an address prefix only specifies the (prefix length) left most bits. RFC3513 has examples with essentially arbitrary bits to the right of the
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:44:21 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> In Section 5.5.3 (d) [not (e) as the previous message said], last para:
>> If an address is formed successfully, the host adds it to the list
>> of addresses assigned to the interface, initializing its pre
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:44:21 +0900,
> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> In Section 5.3:
>> A link-local address is formed by prepending the well-known
>> link-local prefix [RFC3513] (of appropriate length) to the interface
>> identifier. If the interface identifier has a leng
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 23:29:09 +0200 ,
> "Elwyn Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In Section 5.3:
>A link-local address is formed by prepending the well-known
>link-local prefix [RFC3513] (of appropriate length) to the interface
>identifier. If the interface identifier has
Title: RE: new rev. of rfc2462bis will be coming
Sorry - I spotted a couple of other points (updated):
In Section 5.3:
A link-local address is formed by prepending the well-known
link-local prefix [RFC3513] (of appropriate length) to the interface
identifier. If the interface
Title: RE: new rev. of rfc2462bis will be coming
Sorry - I spotted a couple of other points:
In Section 5.3:
A link-local address is formed by prepending the well-known
link-local prefix [RFC3513] (of appropriate length) to the interface
identifier. If the interface identifier
I believe we are almost done about the post-WGLC comments on
rfc2462bis, and I'm going to submit a new revision, addressing the
comments.
The release candidate of the new revision is temporarily available at
http://www.jinmei.org/draft-ietf-ipv6-rfc2462bis-06.txt .
If anyone of you finds someth
16 matches
Mail list logo
