Le 13 oct. 2010 à 22:04, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
...
If IPv6 packets longer than 1280 would be accepted by 6a44
servers, hosts could receive them in fragmented IPv4 datagrams.
Or they might be reassembled in the NAT(s) in front of
the host.
They would indeed.
But they would then be
Hi Fred,
Please see inline. I did have some different assumptions. And those
assumptions might be wrong. It might be better at this stage we let
the tunneled IPv6 MTU be 1280 and tunneling IPv4 MTU not less than
1308.
2010/10/13 Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com:
Hi Washam,
Hi Remi,
-Original Message-
From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.desp...@free.fr]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:09 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Softwires; v4tov6transit...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [v4tov6transition] 6a44 MTU issues
Le 13 oct. 2010 à 22:04, Templin,
Hi Washam,
-Original Message-
From: Washam Fan [mailto:washam@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:50 AM
To: Templin, Fred L
Cc: Rémi Després; Softwires; v4tov6transit...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] IPv6 VPNs configured over
1280 MTU tunnels
Hi Fred,
Fred,
All of your assumptions are lowest-common-denominator.
What else can an operator safely do but make such assumptions?
Regards
Brian
On 2010-10-15 02:08, Templin, Fred L wrote:
Hi Washam,
-Original Message-
From: Washam Fan [mailto:washam@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday,
Hi, Alain David,
We'd like to have a time slot for a presentation in IETF 79.
1. Draft name: draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery
2. Time requested: 5~10 mins
3. Presenter: Sheng Jiang
This is the fourth time we present this draft. This draft has also been
reviewed by DHC working
On Oct 14, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote:
In the specific case being able to provide load-balancing and redundancy in
DS-Lite scenario is a requirement for us, thus I would like to see a solution
for this coming from IETF.
So your requirement is to have load balancing, not to have
David (document shepherd), Jari, all,
In can answer to the technical questions, but before that let
position this discussion in its context in the overall process
(softwire should follow the ietf process). Below a reminder of the
main steps for the adoption of this document:
o
