Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-03.txt

Tom, > On Mar 21, 2024, at 2:20 PM, Tom Herbert > wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:36 PM Toerless Eckert wrote: >> >> Btw: When i asked on of the 6MAN chairs, about the meaning of an Internet >> Protocol >> Number being an "IPv6 Extension Header" or not, the answer was that in his >>

Re: [Int-area] draft-chroboczek-intarea-v4-via-v6 - "IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop"

Warren, Just to confirm, this is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chroboczek-int-v4-via-v6/ currently at -02. Correct? I think this is a good idea and support it. I will try to review it and provide more comments. The ICMP behavior is an interesting problem. Bob > On Jan 22,

Re: [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback

>> >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2023 at 8:33 PM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) >> wrote: >>> Without any hat, I agree with Bob. >>> >>> This I-D should eventually go to 6MAN WG though (with my AD hat) >>> >>> -éric >>> >>> On

Re: [Int-area] New Draft - ICMPv6 Loopback

Tal, I did a quick read of your draft. As noted in the draft this seems to be very similar to ICMPv6 Echo/Echo Reply. The change is to include the request packet in the response, not just the payload. While I don’t have any real opinion on the need for this, I do think it would be a lot

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-bi-intarea-savi-wlan-00.txt

Lin, I did a quick read of this draft.It doesn’t appear to discuss several important issues related to MAC address and IP address binding. These includes: Random Mac address assignments (there is an IETF w.g. MADINAS working in this area) IPv6 Interface ID assignments (see RFC7217 , RFC

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-05.txt

Donald, I looked at the diff. This resolves all of the issues I raised. Thanks! Bob > On May 12, 2023, at 9:38 AM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > This revision includes the improvements suggested by Bob Hinden and > has updated author info. > >

Re: [Int-area] WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-04

d E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA > d3e...@gmail.com <mailto:d3e...@gmail.com> > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:42 PM Bob Hinden <mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Donald, > >> On May 9, 2023, at 6:37

Re: [Int-area] WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-04

Donald, > On May 9, 2023, at 6:37 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > Hi Bob, > > On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden <mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I generally support advancing this document, but

Re: [Int-area] WGLC for draft-ietf-intarea-rfc7042bis-04

Hi, I generally support advancing this document, but I noticed an issue that should be resolved. In Section 2.2.1. "IPv6 Use of Modified EUI‑64 Identifiers”.The contents is technically correct, but it should also mention that this type of IPv6 Interface Identifiers are no longer

Re: [Int-area] What is in a name - draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number

Bob, It’s only the draft file name, you can change the title of the document and keep the same file number. That would make it easier to see the evolution of the work. Chag Sameach! Bob > On Apr 5, 2023, at 10:58 AM, Robert Moskowitz > wrote: > > The origin draft only was discussing

Re: [Int-area] Procedure for obtaining Ethertypes

Don, Adding a procedure describing how to obtain an Ethertype for IETF work seems reasonable to me as well. Bob > On Nov 10, 2022, at 12:24 PM, Donald Eastlake wrote: > > During the INTAREA WG meeting yesterday, there was a desire expressed > to include in the rfc7042bis draft an explicit

Re: [Int-area] Call for Adoption - "Internet Protocol Number for SCHC" draft

I support adoption. I have reviewed the draft and think it is reasonable to assign an IP Protocol Number for SCHC. Bob > On Sep 13, 2022, at 7:15 PM, Wassim Haddad > wrote: > > Dear IntArea WG, > > We are starting a 2-week call for adoption of “Internet Protocol Number for > SCHC” draft:

Re: [Int-area] Resubmit - requesting WG Adoption draft-moskowitz-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number

IPv6 (in >>>> IPv6). Or UDP (with carrying an application protocol or carrying >>>> some routing header like GRE, LISP, ...) or ... >>>> >>>> Yours, >>>> >>>> Joel >>>> >>>> PS: I grant we are not f

Re: [Int-area] Resubmit - requesting WG Adoption draft-moskowitz-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number

next-header field. (AH does). But if we are going to pretend that some > headers are extensions headers and some are not, we should try to be > consistent with the description in 8200 (and 2460). > > On 9/7/2022 4:57 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> >> >> On 9/

Re: [Int-area] Resubmit - requesting WG Adoption draft-moskowitz-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number

Bob, > On Sep 7, 2022, at 1:53 PM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > > > On 9/7/22 16:04, Bob Hinden wrote: >> Bob, >> >> To clarify my question, it only relates to if SCHC should be added to the >> IPv6 Extension Header Types registry. I continue to thin

Re: [Int-area] Resubmit - requesting WG Adoption draft-moskowitz-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number

t; On 9/7/22 15:15, Carsten Bormann wrote: >> On 2022-09-07, at 18:36, Bob Hinden wrote: >>> Is this an IPv6 extension header?Does SCHC include a next header field >>> so it can point to a header that follows? >> If you haven’t seen RFC 5856 to 5858: This is

Re: [Int-area] Resubmit - requesting WG Adoption draft-moskowitz-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number

ion > draft-moskowitz-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number > > > As was discussed at the INTAREA meeting at IETF 114, > > I request that a call for WG adoption of this draft. > > I have made draft name change and edits per Bob Hinden. > > As I said earlier, there is a lot of work

Re: [Int-area] Requesting WG Adoption draft-moskowitz-intarea-ipnumber

h. Or just leave it as TBD, unless you care about what number is assigned. > > I look forward to your response, then I will push out a new ver. Hope this is helpful. > > Bob M. (are there as many 'Bobs' as "Steves" here ;) ) :-) Bob > > > > On 9/6/

Re: [Int-area] Requesting WG Adoption draft-moskowitz-intarea-ipnumber

Bob, Once there is an adoption call, I will support it. I did a quick read of the draft and have a few suggestions, mostly editorial. Please be careful with the terminology. The registry where you are asking for an assignment is called “Internet Protocol Numbers”. I was confused by the

Re: [Int-area] Call for Adoption - IANA Considerations and IETF Protocol and Documentation Usage for IEEE 802 Parameters draft

I support the adoption of this document. Good to have this all written down in one place. Bob > On Aug 31, 2022, at 10:42 AM, Juan Carlos Zuniga (juzuniga) > wrote: > > Dear IntArea WG, > > We are starting a 2-week call for adoption of IANA Considerations and IETF > Protocol and

Re: [Int-area] Call for WG adoption of draft-templin-intarea-parcels-10

Hi, I agree with the other comments that this shouldn’t be adopted at this point. Another point is that what I understand this is proposing would appear to have non-trivial effect on current transport protocols, as it will add delay to create the “parcels”. I don’t see this issue discussed in

Re: [Int-area] New draft: The IETF Will Continue Maintaining IPv4 (draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4)

> On Mar 15, 2022, at 3:31 PM, to...@strayalpha.com wrote: > >> On Mar 15, 2022, at 1:04 PM, Brian E Carpenter >> wrote: >> >> FWIW I do not consider the minor wastage of IPv4 addresses that >> the same authors are concerned about to be serious enough to need >> fixing. > > +1 on that,

Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address

Seth, > On Aug 2, 2021, at 5:14 PM, Seth David Schoen wrote: > > Bob Hinden writes: > >> Seth, >> >> Do I understand correctly, that you are proposing that all hosts, routers, >> firewalls, middle boxes, etc. on the Internet, be updated in order to g

Re: [Int-area] Introducing IPv4 Unicast Extensions with new draft-schoen-intarea-lowest-address

Seth, Do I understand correctly, that you are proposing that all hosts, routers, firewalls, middle boxes, etc. on the Internet, be updated in order to get a single extra IP address per subnet? Plus then having to deal with the complexities of mixed implementations for a very long transition

Re: [Int-area] APN presentation @INTAREA

g? Bob > > Thank you! > > Best regards, > Shuping > > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 11:49 PM >> To: Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) >> Cc: Bob Hinden ; int-area@

Re: [Int-area] APN presentation @INTAREA

Hi Shuping, > On Mar 12, 2021, at 7:34 AM, Pengshuping (Peng Shuping) > wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Please find below the FAQs I listed in the slides but did not get time to > present. Your comments and feedback are very much welcomed. Thank you! > > You can also find the slides here. There

Re: [Int-area] [homenet] Evaluate impact of MAC address randomization to IP applications

I have read the emails and the draft . I am not clear what the goal of the BOF is. Could the proponents state it clearly? From the agenda, Use Cases: • LAN gateway NAPT forwarding - (PRESENTER TBD) • Static NAPT policies - (PRESENTER TBD) • Persistent DHCP IP address

Re: [Int-area] Call for WG adoption of draft-olteanu-intarea-socks-6

Good, thanks. Bob > On Aug 27, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Vladimir Olteanu > wrote: > > Hi, > > Oops, it should be "Standards Track". I'll fix it in the next version. > > Thanks for pointing that out. > > Vlad > > On 8/27/20 10:15 PM, Bob Hinden w

Re: [Int-area] Call for WG adoption of draft-olteanu-intarea-socks-6

HI, Why is the intended status Experimental? RFC1928 was standards track, nor do I see any mention of experiments in the draft. Bob > On Aug 26, 2020, at 12:33 PM, Juan Carlos Zuniga > wrote: > > Dear IntArea WG, > > Now with the summer almost over and following the strong support shown

Re: [Int-area] Tunnels and Fragmentation

Fred, > On Apr 17, 2020, at 10:23 AM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > Hi Bob, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 9:38 AM >> To: Templin (US), Fred L >> Cc: Bob Hi

Re: [Int-area] Tunnels and Fragmentation

Fred, > On Apr 16, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > Hi, two important documents in this wg have been sitting idle for a long time > and > perhaps it is time to start moving them forward again. The documents are: "IP > Fragmentation Considered Fragile", and "IP Tunnels in

Re: [Int-area] Int Area Interim Meeting?

; be cancelling the IntArea WG session for IETF 107. > We are sorry about the inconvenience. > If you are interested in presenting at a future virtual or physical (IETF > 108) meeting, please contact Wassim and myself. > > > Regards, > > Wassim H. > > > 

[Int-area] Int Area Interim Meeting?

Is there going to be an Int Area interim meeting scheduled? Or did I miss it? Bob signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Re: [Int-area] GPS over wifi

Rob, What exactly do you mean by GPS over wifi? Do you mean sending location/course/speed/etc. data over wifi? Or somehow replicating the actual GPS satellite data? I don’t see how the latter would work giving the timing requirements. There are lots of current practice in sending NMEA

Re: [Int-area] GUE: IANA Considerations question

Greg, > On Oct 23, 2019, at 6:44 AM, Greg Mirsky wrote: > > Dear Authors, et al., > I have a rather benign question the new registry requested in Section 8.3. > The draft states that the whole 1-127 range is "RFC required" per RFC 5226. > Firstly, a nit - RFC 5226 has been obsoleted by RFC

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-hbh-destopt-00.txt

Joe, > On Sep 28, 2019, at 8:05 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, David, > > Although I appreciate new interest in trying this experiment, that’s not what > I was asking. > > My understanding of the logic is as follows: > - IPv4 in-header options aren’t supported > - so let’s make a

Re: [Int-area] [ih] Fwd: Existing use of IP protocol 114 (any 0-hop protocol)

Adrian, > On Sep 22, 2019, at 8:20 AM, Adrian Farrel wrote: > > Hi Bob, > >> I think it would be fine for this draft to request a new one that accurately >> described its usage. > > For what it's worth, the assignment policy for the registry is IESG Approval > or Standards Action. > > The

Re: [Int-area] [ih] Fwd: Existing use of IP protocol 114 (any 0-hop protocol)

Brian, Joe, > On Sep 20, 2019, at 8:23 PM, Brian E Carpenter > wrote: > > On 21-Sep-19 14:11, Joe Touch wrote: >> FWIW, there are many registries with such “dead” entries. > > 114 is a bit special. By definition, all our normal traffic monitoring > techniques will *never* see protocol 114

Re: [Int-area] [ih] Fwd: Existing use of IP protocol 114 (any 0-hop protocol)

Andy, > On Sep 20, 2019, at 10:37 AM, Andrew G. Malis wrote: > > Behcet, > > That was a historical list. The current assignments are in > https://www.iana.org/assignments/protocol-numbers/protocol-numbers.xhtml .. > If you want to go garbage collecting, that's the place to start. It's

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Fred, > On Sep 11, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > Geoff, the 1280 MTU came from Steve Deering's November 13, 1997 proposal to > the ipngwg. The exact message from the ipng archives is reproduced below. > > 1280 isn't just a recommendation - it's *the law*. Any link that

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Ole, > On Sep 6, 2019, at 9:03 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > > > This document should not recommend IP in UDP in IP encapsulation to achieve > end to end IP fragmentation for new applications. The document doesn’t say that, nor is the document recommending this. The current text Joe and I

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Ole, > On Sep 6, 2019, at 9:03 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > > > This document should not recommend IP in UDP in IP encapsulation to achieve > end to end IP fragmentation for new applications. The document doesn’t say that, nor is the document recommending this. The current text Joe and I

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Ron >> >> >> Juniper Business Use Only >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Bob Hinden >> Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 2:29 PM >> To: int-area@ietf.org >> Cc: Bob Hinden ; Alissa Cooper ; &

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Tom, > On Sep 5, 2019, at 12:53 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 11:29 AM Bob Hinden wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Based on the discussion, I would like to propose to see if this will resolve >> the issues raised. It attempts to cover the

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Fred, > On Sep 5, 2019, at 12:57 PM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > >>> >>> Your effort is appreciated, but IMHO does not quite go far enough. Here is >>> a proposed edit: >> >> Thanks! >> >>> >>> OLD: >>> Protocols and applications that rely on IP >>> fragmentation will work less

Re: [Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

thers. Bob > > Thanks - Fred > >> -Original Message- >> From: Int-area [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob Hinden >> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2019 11:29 AM >> To: int-area@ietf.org >> Cc: IESG ; Joel Halpern ; >> dra

[Int-area] Discussion about Section 6.1 in draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile

Hi, Based on the discussion, I would like to propose to see if this will resolve the issues raised. It attempts to cover the issues raised. The full section 6.1 is included below, but only the last sentence in the second paragraph changed. Please review and comment. Thanks, Bob 6.1.

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fred, > On Sep 4, 2019, at 7:23 AM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > Bob, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 5:08 PM >> To: Templin (US), Fred L >> Cc: Bob Hinde

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16.txt

Tom, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 2:20 PM, Tom Herbert wrote: >> >> The relevant text in -16 is: >> >> 6.1. For Application and Protocol Developers >> >> Developers SHOULD NOT develop new protocols or applications that rely >> on IP fragmentation. When a new protocol or application is deployed

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

Fred, > On Sep 3, 2019, at 2:10 PM, Templin (US), Fred L > wrote: > > Bob, > >> -Original Message- >> From: Bob Hinden [mailto:bob.hin...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2019 1:57 PM >> To: Tom Herbert >> Cc: Bob Hinden ; Templ

Re: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16.txt

Joe, > On Aug 30, 2019, at 4:36 PM, Joe Touch wrote: > > Hi, all, > > I disagree with the changes indicated in this version. > > The new text is both incorrect does not IMO reflect WG consensus. > > It is simply false that "it WILL break" or "new protocols can't possibly know > whether

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-16: (with COMMENT)

is mentioned in > the introduction. I am serving as document editor. This to my understanding has been through w.g. last call and now IESG review. > > Tom > > > > Tom > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 1:01 PM Bob Hinden wrote: >> >&

Re: [Int-area] An extension to PROBE [RFC8335] diagnostic tool

Manoj, > On Aug 17, 2019, at 8:05 AM, Manoj Nayak > wrote: > > > Folks, > > We have posted 01 version of the draft “Probing IP Interfaces By Vendor > Specific Identifiers”. > This draft is extension to PROBE [RFC8335] diagnostic tool. The tool is > extended so that the > tool can

Re: [Int-area] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-intarea-frag-fragile-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Joel, > On Aug 15, 2019, at 7:00 AM, Joel Halpern wrote: > > Bob was going to engage Alissa in a conversation. Bob, have you gotten > anywhere? I think she may be on vacation. I sent Alissa some proposed text, but got back what I interpreted as a vacation email. I note there is an IESG

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ipv4-eh-00.txt

Tom, > On Apr 8, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > > Hello, > > I have posted a draft describing IPv4 extension headers an flow > labels. Previously this was in draft-herbert-ipv4-udpencap-eh-01, but > it seems like this is an important topic in its own right. > > I would like to

Re: [Int-area] maprg session on Tue Nov 6, 1610-1810

> > >> Am 31.10.2018 um 16:52 schrieb Bob Hinden : >> >> Mirja, >> >> I don’t see an abstract for "Privacy and Security Issues in IPv6 Deployment” >> talk on the agenda page you linked. Is that available? >> >> Bob >> &

Re: [Int-area] maprg session on Tue Nov 6, 1610-1810

Mirja, I don’t see an abstract for "Privacy and Security Issues in IPv6 Deployment” talk on the agenda page you linked. Is that available? Bob > On Oct 31, 2018, at 5:09 AM, Mirja Kühlewind > wrote: > > Hi int floks, > > we will have a short heads-up talk on Privacy and Security Issues in

Re: [Int-area] draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile-01

Joe, > On Mar 5, 2018, at 7:01 AM, Joe Touch wrote: > > This doc completely overlooks the role of fragmentation in IP over IP > tunneling and the reason fragmentation is critical (IP has a maximum packet > size, not just a minimum). > > See draft-ietf-intarea-tunnels.

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp-05.txt

Xiaohu, This document should refer to the new versions of the IPv6 and IPv6 PMTU RFCs specifications (RFC8200 and RFC8201). Please check if you need to change any text in your draft to be consistent with these. Thanks, Bob > On Oct 17, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:

Re: [Int-area] Call for support: IPmix I-D (was IPv10)

>> >> If you are interested in participating in the work mentioned above, please >> respond to this mail expressing your support by October 17, 2017. >> > The draft and the concept have been thoroughly discussed on int-area > list (twice). I don't see that the problem is worth solving, the >

Re: [Int-area] [6lo] Liaison statement received from ITU-T regarding a "Reference Model of IPv6 Addressing Plan for Internet of Things Deployment"

6man as well, depending on what is in the actual document. Bob > On Oct 3, 2017, at 1:42 AM, Samita Chakrabarti wrote: > > Thanks Suresh, for sharing the information. It looks quite relevant to 6lo WG > workarea. We, 6lo-chairs will contact Scott and the ITU-T contact

Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] WG Adoption Call: Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data

Hi Eric, > On Oct 2, 2017, at 7:04 AM, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > > Bob, > > Thanks for your support and more important for your review! Happy to help. > > [Would I dare to say that it was hard to spot your email inside the IPv10 > flood? ;-) ] I didn’t notice yours

Re: [Int-area] Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.

> On Oct 1, 2017, at 10:10 PM, Suresh Krishnan > wrote: > > >> On Oct 2, 2017, at 12:38 AM, Melinda Shore wrote: >> >> On 10/1/17 8:13 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: >>> I have a proposal for the chairs: solicit interest in pursuing the >>>

Re: [Int-area] [v6ops] WG Adoption Call: Discovering Provisioning Domain Names and Data

Hi, I read the document and have some comments. Overall I think working on Provisioning Domains is fine in Int-Area, but I think the document has issues that need to be resolved. I will leave it for the w.g. chairs to decide if they need to be fixed before or after adoption. Specific

Re: [Int-area] AD sponsoring draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-02

This was discussed in the 6man session at IETF96. See: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/slides/slides-96-6man-4.pdf Minutes, audio, video: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/6man.html Bob > On Nov 29, 2016, at 8:36 PM, Suresh Krishnan > wrote: > > Hi

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-carpenter-flow-label-balancing-02

Support. Bob On Dec 18, 2012, at 4:45 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: Hi all, This draft has been presented at intarea face to face meetings and has received a bit of discussion. It has been difficult to gauge whether the wg is interested in this work or not. This call is being initiated to

Re: [Int-area] IRON issue discussion

Fred, This sounds a lot like Mobile IPv6 with the extension that the client can change home agents if the client get's too far away from where the the home agent is. I am sure the details are different, but the functionality sounds similar. Bob On Jun 14, 2011, at 5:12 AM, Templin, Fred L

Re: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-george-ipv6-required-02.txt

On Jun 4, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: I think it's a little sad that we have to state the painfully obvious but I support the sentiment unequivocally. +6 Bob joel On Jun 2, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Jared Mauch wrote: I support adoption of this draft as well. - Jared

Re: [Int-area] introducing a new IPv4 option [was RE: [BEHAVE] Revealing identity of TCP client connection when sharing IPv4 address]

On Aug 31, 2010, at 11:33 AM, Dan Wing wrote: A paper was published in 2004 which analyzed the success of new IP options and new TCP options, Measuring Interactions Between Transport Protocols and Middleboxes Alberto Medina, Mark Allman, Sally Floyd