> > With regard to the IPV6_V6ONLY option, it made and makes little difference to > me what value the option defaults to. No matter which we choose code will > break. We have also had this discussion before. I see that Erik and Brian > are for changing the default value to true. I didn't say that. I said if I had a time machine and could be back N years I would change the default. What to do at this point in time is far from clear. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Francis Dupont
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Brian Zill
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Mauro Tortonesi
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Dave Thaler
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Tim Hartrick
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... Erik Nordmark
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Mauro Tortonesi
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Mauro Tortonesi
- RE: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Christian Huitema
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to... David Terrell
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Jim Bound
- Re: RFC 2553 bind semantics harms the way to AF i... Jim Bound
