Dear Chairs,
We would like to reserve a time slot for the presentation of
draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation in the interim meeting.
Many thanks for your helps
Best Regards
Gang
2011/8/22, Alain Durand adur...@juniper.net:
As we mentioned earlier, the softwire interim meeting will focus
Hi Tina,
Please see inline.
Cheers
Med
De : Tina TSOU [mailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 26 août 2011 04:35
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; Jacni Qin
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
Objet : RE: [Softwires] Comments on
Re-,
L2-relatd considerations described in Section 8 of draft-qin does not require
any specific behaviour from the mAFTR.
I suggest we continue this thread off-line.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Tina TSOU [mailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 26 août 2011
Hi Tina,
Sure can but IPv6 MTU discovery like IPv4 MTU discovery, it is unreliable.
We can list it as an option but readers should notice this may not work in
all cases.
Regards,
Yiu
On 8/25/11 10:36 PM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote:
Hi all,
In section 6.3, To avoid
Hi,
I support all of them to become WG drafts.
Best Regards!
Jiang Dong
Hi folks,
Following our rough concensus during Quebec City meeting and
according to our charter/milestones, the chairs would like to
ask the mailing list for the confirmation to adopt the following
drafts:
1.
Dear Chairs,
As Gang mentioned, we would like to request for a time slot for the
presentation of
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chen-softwire-4v6-pd-00.txt
Thanks for your consideration!
Tao
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:07 PM, GangChen phdg...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Chairs,
Could you
Hello,
I would like to ask two slots to present:
1. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dec-stateless-4v6
2. Stateless port mapping algorithms overview
Regards,
Wojciech.
On 22 August 2011 17:37, Alain Durand adur...@juniper.net wrote:
As we mentioned earlier, the softwire interim meeting
Dear Jacni,
Just after reading RFC 1981, I think fragmentation of IPv6 is needed. In
section 5.1, it says, It is possible that a packetization layer, perhaps a UDP
application outside the kernel, is unable to change the size of messages it
sends. This may result in a packet size that exceeds
hi,
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.comwrote:
Dear Jacni,
Just after reading RFC 1981, I think fragmentation of IPv6 is needed. In
section 5.1, it says, “It is possible that a packetization layer, perhaps
a UDP application outside the kernel, is
