Hi,
On 11/11/2013 12:54, ian.far...@telekom.de ian.far...@telekom.de wrote:
Hi Ole,
How about:
--
The solution described in this document is suitable for provisioning IPv4
addressing and other configuration necessary for establishing softwire
connectivity using DHCPv6. This means that the
...@tools.ietf.org
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhc...@tools.ietf.orgmailto:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhc...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: Alignment between
softwire-map-dhcp and dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 drafts
Hi Woj,
2013/11/11 Wojciech Dec (wdec) w
-...@tools.ietf.orgmailto:draft-ietf-softwire-...@tools.ietf.org
draft-ietf-softwire-...@tools.ietf.orgmailto:draft-ietf-softwire-...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [softwire] #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode?
Hi Woj,
Please see inline.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Wojciech Dec (wdec)
w
Hi Ian,
On 15/02/2013 09:29, ian.far...@telekom.de ian.far...@telekom.de wrote:
Hi Ole,
Assuming that the Unified CPE draft gets adopted by the workgroup, then
there needs to be alignment of the different drafts reflecting this.
The unified CPE draft describes how a CPE interprets the
On 15/02/2013 10:11, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
2013-02-15 10:03, Wojciech Dec (wdec) w...@cisco.com :
...
It is my opinion that we've discussed this 1:1 mode many many times
before, and at each time concluded that a) it is a natural
characteristic
of MAP ii) it would
-02-15 à 11:16, Wojciech Dec (wdec) w...@cisco.com a écrit :
On 15/02/2013 10:11, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
2013-02-15 10:03, Wojciech Dec (wdec) w...@cisco.com :
...
It is my opinion that we've discussed this 1:1 mode many many times
before, and at each time
On 15/02/2013 14:30, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
2013-02-15 12:16, Wojciech Dec (wdec) w...@cisco.com :
Remi,
The question Ole posed still stands:
- what does remove MAP 1:1 mode mean?
This question was in Ole's answer to Med saying he is in favour of
removing MAP1:1
On 15/02/2013 14:51, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
We've previously established consensus that MAP supports 1:1 mode (it
likely happened at the meeting after you bid farewell to the group).
Suresh can confirm.
Please understand that Removing MAP1:1 section isn't against this (as
Hi,
While thanking the authors for their attempt, I need to provide some high
level feedback first on key issues:
The rationale section 1.1 states co-existance as the goal - this appears
to imply some entirely different solutions for which co-existance is
needed, and here are two points:
A) I can
Hi Med.,
On 30/11/2012 12:10, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Hi Woj,
Many thanks for the comments.
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Wojciech Dec (wdec) [mailto:w...@cisco.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 30 novembre 2012 11:42
À
On 30/11/2012 14:17, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Re-,
Please see inline/
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Wojciech Dec (wdec) [mailto:w...@cisco.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 30 novembre 2012 13:21
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN;
draft-ietf-softwire
On 25/07/2012 15:47, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 2012-07-24 à 12:46, Ole Trøan a écrit :
1. No, 4rd doesn't have the same problem as MAP concerning sites that
use
subnet 0.
Wojciech, if you see a reason why a site should renumber its subnet 0
to
use 4rd, please
On 25/07/2012 15:47, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
take it to 6man.
6man has to be involved, sure, but Softwire should first be clear about
the purpose, and possible drawbacks if any.
If you see such drawbacks, please clarify.
Here's one:
I'd like my insert name of your
13 matches
Mail list logo
