Dear All,
We have updated the draft(
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-08.txt
) to -08 version.
Please review the latest version and provide your comments as many as
possible.
Thanks in advance:)
Best Regards,
Linda Wang
- 转发人
Hi all,
I believe this draft is mature enough to be put forward.
Support.
BRs,
Linda Wang
Softwires softwires-boun...@ietf.org 写于 2015-01-22 23:30:57:
Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com
发件人: Softwires softwires-boun...@ietf.org
2015-01-22 23:30
收件人
softwires@ietf.org
Dear all,
We have updated the V6 version of RADIUS Attribute for
Multicast-Prefixes-64. And we have adopted all the comments from the
on-line discussion and off-line discussion.
Please have a review of this draft and any comments are welcome.
Best Regards,
Linda Wang
Hi, Linhui,
Thanks for your comments. Please see inline.
And all your comments we will update them in the next version.
Many thanks.
BRs
Linda Wang
sunlin...@bupt.edu.cn sunlin...@bupt.edu.cn 写于 2014-10-06 11:38:50:
sunlin...@bupt.edu.cn sunlin...@bupt.edu.cn
2014-10-06 11:38
收件人
Hi，Ian
Since multiple IPv6 transitions technologies have been deployed in
current network. It seems
urgent to have a standard draft providing a unified mechanism to integrate
these
scenarioes in a network with unifed cpe(s) and unifed network gateway(s),
as well as unified
provisioning
Hi，all，
My question has addressed. Thanks!
BRs,
Linda Wang
Qi Sun sunqi.csnet@gmail.com 写于 2014-08-18 10:47:10:
Qi Sun sunqi.csnet@gmail.com
2014-08-18 10:47
收件人
wang.c...@zte.com.cn,
抄送
ian.far...@telekom.de ian.far...@telekom.de, softwires@ietf.org
主题
Re:
Hi Ian,
Thanks for your explaination. Now I get the main purpose and I really
guess it would be better
understood if you can put your words below in the new version of this
draft :)
And now I guess this draft may be the companion draft of a new draft
about how to synchronise
the binding
Qi，
That's exactly what I want to express. Now it's addressed. Thanks.
Here, I have another question: some content in section 1:
The service provider can then
use this binding information to provision other functional elements
in their network accordingly (such as the border
Hi, Qi,
Suppose the preferred prefix in the OPTION_DHCP4O6_SADDR_HINT doesn't
match any prefixes configured on the device,
what IPv6 address would be passed back to the DHCP 4o6 Server?
BRs,
Linda Wang
Softwires softwires-boun...@ietf.org 写于 2014-07-01 19:28:39:
Qi Sun
Hi,
Keeping PSID in IIDs seems repeated from the aspect of 128-bit IPv6
address, but from the aspect of 64-bit IIDs, IPv4 address and PSID
guarantee IIDs to be universally unique.
So, +1 Keeping the IPv4 and PSID in IIDs.
BRs
Linda Wang
Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com
发件人:
Hi,Remi
softwires-boun...@ietf.org 写于 2013-01-29 00:16:32:
Senthil,
2013-01-2815:24, Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) ssent...@cisco.com :
I believe the prefix length 64 should be allowed.
It is upto the
operator to choose the prefix length of their choice.
Agreed.
No one
hi Sentihil and Maoke,
Things come a little confused, let us come to the first email Kris had
sent and I cut some discussion from before emails:
1) Does MAP support this scenario (example):
- (BMR) Rule 1:
Rule IPv6 Prefix: 2001::/40
Rule IPv4 Prefix:
A new version of I-D, draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Cui Wang and posted to the
IETF repository.
Filename: draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext
Revision: 02
Title:RADIUS Extensions for
Hi, All
Here, we've updated the multicast radius attribute drafts.
In the draft, we use many terminology “DS-Lite Multicast”, after
[I-D.ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast] updates according to the mailing list
, we'll update the abstract and introduction in our draft.
Any comment is
14 matches
Mail list logo
