On 25 July 2012 16:13, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 2012-07-25 à 15:59, Wojciech Dec (wdec) a écrit :
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
Le 2012-07-27 à 16:20, Wojciech Dec a écrit :
On 25 July 2012 16:13, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 2012-07-25 à 15:59, Wojciech Dec (wdec) a écrit :
On 25/07/2012 15:47, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
take it to 6man.
6man has to be
Remi,
because no-one will ever do this?
Assuming that details that follow mean that an expert can configure a node
with an address that isn't unauthorized by any RFC, and in particular a
4rd-reserved address, that's acknowledged.
But nothing specific needs to be done, in 4rd not more
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 explain.
because no-one will ever do this?
Assuming that details that
Le 2012-07-25 à 09:55, Ole Trøan a écrit :
Remi,
because no-one will ever do this?
Assuming that details that follow mean that an expert can configure a node
with an address that isn't unauthorized by any RFC, and in particular a
4rd-reserved address, that's acknowledged.
But
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
Le 2012-07-25 à 15:56, Wojciech Dec (wdec) a écrit :
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
Le 2012-07-25 à 15:59, Wojciech Dec (wdec) a écrit :
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
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 explain.
because no-one will ever do this?
gomlefisk: otroan$ sudo ifconfig en1 inet6 2001:db8:0:0:0300::1/64
Remi,
a site already using subnet 0 may require renumbering. would you be satisfied
if the draft said so?
cheers,
Ole
On Jul 23, 2012, at 10:39 , softwire issue tracker wrote:
#5: Problems of MAP-T and MAP-E with sites that already use subnet ID = 0
Changes (by remi.despres@…):
*
11 matches
Mail list logo
