Subject:
Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-6to4-to-historic
From:
Keith Moore
Date:
Sat, 2 Jul 2011 23:10:47 -0400
To:
Cameron Byrne
CC:
"v6...@ietf.org" , IETF Discussion
Precedence:
list
MIME-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
References:
<13205c286662de4387d9af3ac30ef456d3f3507...@em
Keith Moore wrote:
On Jul 3, 2011, at 2:23 AM, Ray Hunter wrote:
IMHO Right now, we need services with native IPv6 based interfaces, with
equivalent performance and equivalent features and equivalent price that we
have today with IPv4. Anything that detracts from the roll out of native
Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 06:25:17PM +0900, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>>> Sure, but the majority are mandatory, and don't forget that some of them
>>> are quite large (e.g., "implement RFC 6204"). Also, I believe it's not the
>>> IETF's role to produce vendor requirements
Templin, Fred L wrote:
> Hi Brian,
>
> Responding in a slightly re-arranged order:
>
>> The problem is that you are asserting that middleboxes that a tunnel
>> passes through are expected to examine the complete header chain of
>> the encapsulated packet even if the encapsulated packet is a fragmen
> Templin, Fred L <mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>
> 11 October 2013 17:33
> Hi Ray,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Ray Hunter [mailto:v6...@globis.net]
>> Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 12:49 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L; brian.e.carpen...@gm
