Before requiring IPv6 support, it is necessary to revise obviously
broken parts of IPv6.
For example, ICMPv6 generated agaist multicast packets should be
forbidden or ICMPv6 implosions will occur. It will let ISPs filter
ICMPv6, including but not limited to, those against multicast,
which means
IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes
draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01
The document strives to convey the message that IP is no longer
equivalent to IPv4, which is a goal that I'd fully support.
However, while this is a political statement that the
From: Keith Moore mo...@network-heretics.com
To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt (IPv6 Support
Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
I support publication of some document like this one. Suggestions for
clarification
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: ietf@ietf.org
Reply-to: s...@resistor.net
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt (IPv6 Support
Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
X-RSN: 1/0/933/10475/58528
From Section 1:
However, due to the success of the Internet
From: SM s...@resistor.net
To: Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
Reply-to: s...@resistor.net
Subject: Re: Last Call: draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt (IPv6 Support
Required for all IP-capable nodes) to Proposed Standard
Section 2 of RFC 4084 lists the primary IP service terms
Hi George,
At 10:11 22-08-2011, George, Wesley wrote:
WEG] You're reading too much into this. It's a statement of the
current situation, not a discussion about whether unique addresses
are good or bad.
Ok.
WEG] As an operator (consumer ISP) who happens to spend a lot of
time talking about
Hi Brian,
At 16:49 20-08-2011, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
I think most of your comments will be dealt with by
wordsmithing, but...
See comments below.
It't quite clear to me, but we could spell it out: s/IP/IPv4/.
That's clearer.
Yes it does. It clarifies, for consumer organizations for
On 2011-08-21 19:02, SM wrote:
Hi Brian,
...
IPv6 node requirements are defined in RFC 4294. It's merely an
informative reference in draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01. The
discussion about IPV4 address pool exhaustion (Section 1) is a
distraction from a definition of an IP-capable node.
At 11:33 19-08-2011, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
(intarea) to consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes'
draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a
Hi Subramanian,
I think most of your comments will be dealt with by
wordsmithing, but...
On 2011-08-21 06:11, SM wrote:
...
From Section 2:
'Updates [RFC1812], especially sections 1, 2, and 4 which use the
generic IP synonymously with the more specific IPv4. Since
RFC1812 is an
I support publication of some document like this one. Suggestions for
clarification to this document:
1. (section 2 in general) I think it's vague for this document to claim that it
updates earlier documents as if it's changing the text of those documents.
The reader is left with only a
I fully support this document. It could be tuned in the way
Keith suggested, but basically it is a Good Thing.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
The IESG has received a request from the Internet Area Working Group WG
(intarea) to consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Support Required for all IP-capable nodes'
draft-ietf-intarea-ipv6-required-01.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and
13 matches
Mail list logo