Hi Bernie,
Thanks a lot for looking at this.
I may be wrong, but I think they are different "option codes" tables and should
not be a conflict.
If I'm wrong it means the RFC8026 table it's just a subset, which is confusing
when you look into the IANA web page, because looks like
Hi Jordi:
Haven't look at the draft in detail yet, but I did find it rather odd that you
are using option code 46. As these are DHCPv6 option codes, this maps to:
Value Description Client ORO Singleton Option
Reference
46 OPTION_CLT_TIME No Yes
Hi all,
I'm sending this to Sotfwires and DHC WGs, in order to let know and seek
review, but please keep the discussion only in v6ops which is responsible of
this document
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas/
Here is the short summary of the reasons for
This email announces a Softwire Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on:
Since both chairs of softwire WG are the co-authors of this document. I am now
acting as the document shepherd for this draft.
YANG Modules for IPv4-in-IPv6 Address plus Port Softwires
draft-ietf-softwire-yang-04
Hi Authors,
I’m currently in the process of doing the write up for the draft. Please can
you tell me if there are there any implementations in existence?
Also, I have run v21 through ID-Nits. The important output is below. For the
downref, to RFC4925, does this need to be a normative
