Thanks for the pointer to draft-baker-6renum-oss-renumbering, Tim. It’s true
that renumbering is only a sequence of numbering actions.
On Mar 25, 2015, at 9:20 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
At this time, I do not understand the DHCPv6-PD state machinery to enable
temporal
On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson swm...@swm.pp.se wrote:
Actually, why would the customer trigger this? Is there a good use case for
this? In my mind, this is purely triggered from the ISP side, when a network
event is planned to happen.
Because some customers feel that
On Mar 25, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Timothy Winters twint...@iol.unh.edu wrote:
Hi,
For the IPv6 Ready/UNH-IOL testing that we have done, both an
Interoperability and Conformance, there is a test makes sure a Router
supports getting multiple IA_PDs for Prefix Change.
Thanks Tim.
Two
On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:17 PM, STARK, BARBARA H bs7...@att.com wrote:
Yup. Are you aware of similar issues with changing the IAID? If the ISP
has a
limit to how many prefixes can be assigned on a particular customer port,
that could cause issues, but if it's a supported feature as it
On Mar 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
[...] Make-before-break
renumbering (a.k.a. planned renumbering) is preferable but we can't
rely on it. (I also try to never forget Fred Baker's observation that
there is no such thing as renumbering: there
On Oct 14, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:41:55AM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 14, 2014, at 9:27 AM, Gert Doering g...@space.net wrote:
flash renumber is a problem is pretty much a non-argument, as flash
renumbering *will* happen, and
