While we are on the subject of Errata in RFC 5969, aren't the following
two pieces of text from RFC 5969 inconsistent?
[In 6rd, all CEs and BRs can be considered as connected to the same
virtual link and therefore neighbors to each other.]
[with all 6rd CEs and BRs defined as off-link neighbors
Washam,
Got it, thanks.
Hemant
-Original Message-
From: Washam Fan [mailto:washam@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 9:20 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com; Ralph Droms;
draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-opt...@tools.ietf.org; Softwires
Folks,
VoIP protocols in MGCP and SIP have been supporting IP address and FQDN for a
long time. In VoIP deployment with FQDN use, the deployment always keeps a
local name resolver. So why not look carefully at the use cases operators are
presenting to advocate use of both FQDN and IP address
A general question. If 6rd could become an RFC in RFC 5969 with no
mention of FQDN for the BR, what is so special about DS-Lite and
deployments that a FQDN is needed by DS-Lite for the AFTR? I would
think the same FQDN issue would arise in 6rd as well... What did I miss?
Thanks,
Hemant
