... and notifications via ANCP if that is running.
On 15/09/2010 2:37 PM, sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Indeed. And the router needs to send out an individual RA per interface.
So a router aggregating 20.000 customers will need to send out 20.000
RAs on a regular basis.
So the router is configured
I on the other hand, as a more naive reader, find the update useful to
understanding.
On 18/01/2012 9:04 AM, Thomas Narten wrote:
I am curious as to what others think about this.
IMO, we are discussing trivialities, not something rising to the level
of needing an errata or worth spending any
I'd like to respond to one of your points. Your overall thrust
(preservation of the existing architure) is reasonable, but it is really
useful operationally for nodes to be able to recognize IPv6 multicast
addresses that contain embedded IPv4 multicast addresses. If the path
taken by the
I think there's a misunderstanding here. The only requirement is to
translate the IP headers. The document in question deals with the
address translation part of that task.
On 25/05/2012 11:09 PM, Jon Steen wrote:
Sorry all, coming into this late. I have read the RFC and really do not get
why
Sounds like we're talking about templates.
On 21/11/2012 10:28 AM, George, Wes wrote:
From: renum-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:renum-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Teco Boot
Op 20 nov. 2012, om 18:24 heeft Stig Venaas het volgende
geschreven:
IP-Specific configuration
What about IP
Support.
On 21/03/2013 8:54 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
All,
At the Orlando meeting this document was discussed, and there was consensus in
the room to
adopt this as a working group document.
This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on confirming the
consensus on the mailing list:
Support.
On 21/03/2013 8:57 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
All,
At the Orlando meeting this document was discussed, and there was consensus in
the room to
adopt this as a working group document.
This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on confirming the
consensus on the mailing list:
Support.
On 21/03/2013 9:00 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
All,
At the Orlando meeting this document was discussed, and there was consensus in
the room to
adopt this as a working group document.
This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on confirming the
consensus on the mailing list:
Could I suggest the following:
- Keep the first sentence unchanged.
- Then:
SPF implementations on IPv6 servers need to handle both
and A records. This is because clients on IPv4
mapped IPv6 addresses [RFC4291] will appear to the SPF
implementation as IPv4 clients. Complementarily
On 09/06/2013 9:42 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 06/08/2013 11:12 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
Or is the complexity of the ASIC implementation of a header chain parser
more heavily influenced by the fact that the header chain is defined as
a linked list of type-length-value items that can be built up
rfc6553
regards,
RayH
...
Neither of these should appear outside of limited domains. The Line
Identification option passes from the Access Node in a broadband
deployment to the edge router (BNG) and goes no further. The RPL option
is used only inside of RPL networks.
Tom Taylor
On 14/06/2013 10:21 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
Tom Taylor mailto:tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com
14 June 2013 15:58
On 14/06/2013 9:25 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
...
I've been trawling through various standards trying to identify sane
extension header combinations myself.
I've come across a couple
It's a bit late for the call on adoption, but FWIW I support Fernando.
Tom Taylor
On 03/09/2013 8:44 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/02/2013 07:34 AM, Ole Troan wrote:
If you read chapter 5 it starts out by explaining how RPF check
is always done
It's normal practice in other WGs I've worked with (e.g, AVT, MMUSIC).
If you name the registry exactly as shown on the IANA page, implementors
can always search for it. A URL is transitory, as the text vs. XML
discussion shows.
On 06/09/2013 8:01 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 09/06/2013 05:13
Just a trivial change: including - subject to
On 02/10/2013 1:14 PM, Ronald Bonica wrote:
Brian,
This works for me. So, the complete list of changes follows. Do these work for
you?
Ron
CHANGES
===
...
OLD
A host that receives a first-fragment
15 matches
Mail list logo
