+1
Thank all for the insightful discussion that took place around this draft.
Your feedback will be carefully considered to progress the work and we welcome
any further comment/feedback/help. :-)
ciao
Luigi
On 27 Nov. 2012, at 14:30 , Brian Haberman br...@innovationslab.net wrote:
I want
Hi Roger,
On 14 Nov. 2012, at 10:42 , Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:45 PM, The IESG iesg-secret...@ietf.org wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP EID Block'
Hi,
thanks for the comments. Few answers inline.
On 14 Nov. 2012, at 12:19 , SM s...@resistor.net wrote:
At 06:45 13-11-2012, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
WG (lisp) to consider the following document:
- 'LISP EID Block'
On 15 Nov. 2012, at 10:43 , Sander Steffann san...@steffann.nl wrote:
Hi,
I have to ask, who can request an netblock from this address space and
from where?
I might be blind but I couldn't find it mentioned anywhere.
Good question. Will there be a central registry, or will parts of the
Hi George,
On 15 Nov. 2012, at 11:50 , George Michaelson ggm+i...@apnic.net wrote:
I think this document isn't ready for IETF last call.
We are open to any suggestion to make the document ready for it. ;-)
I think the context of an experimental assignment which heads to
distributing
Hi Bert,
On 15 Nov. 2012, at 11:55 , Bert Wijnen (IETF) berti...@bwijnen.net wrote:
[snip]
So it is not asking just a /16 but also asking for reservation of a /12.
Pretty big space.
And in the list of reasons, I mainly read that it is sufficiently large,
but not much about why it needs
On Jul 20, 2012, at 18:36 , Joel jaeggli wrote:
On 7/20/12 09:06 , IETF Administrative Director wrote:
The IAOC is seeking community feedback on a proposed date change for IETF 95
scheduled for March 2016.
Currently IETF 95 is scheduled for 27 March to 1 April 2016. 27 March is
Easter.
On Nov 2, 2011, at 23:23 , Templin, Fred L wrote:
Thankfully, I missed most of the earlier threads related
to this. But, on the subject of identifiers, Robin is right.
What the IETF protocol known as LISP calls identifiers are
actually IP addresses. And, IP addresses name *interfaces*;
they
Robin,
On Oct 30, 2011, at 10:45 , Robin Whittle wrote:
[snip]
you applied only to Luigi and anyone else to appears to be happy with
referring to the LISP protocol as something like the Locator -
Identifier Separation Protocol.
Again, this is just your interpretation and not what I meant
Hi,
Like Jari and others I do not see the name as disrespectful and it is
unrealistic to believe that the loc/ID speration protocol can be renamed. It
has been around for more than 5 years it is just too late.
On the other hand, the name can be considered an homage by itself.
Luigi Iannone
On Oct 28, 2011, at 12:33 , Robin Whittle wrote:
Hi Luigi,
As I wrote in a recent message:
Misnamed WGs, e.g. LISP != Loc/ID Split
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg70176.html
HIP, which is a Locator-Identifier Separation protocol, dates from
2003, 8 years ago.
Hi Robin,
Thanks, but no thanks. I do not want to be dragged in such kind of discussion.
I expressed my opinion, please do not attribute to me things that I did not
say or meant to say.
Thanks
ciao
Luigi
On Oct 28, 2011, at 13:52 , Robin Whittle wrote:
Hi Luigi,
You wrote:
this
12 matches
Mail list logo
