Hi Stewart, Dirk and all,
These drafts are significant work which I don't think there is any conflict
view to draft-jia-scenarios-flexible-address-structure. It's hard for most
people to reach rough consensus on so many aspects of problem statement at the
same time. So it's worth to focus on on
Hi Brian,
> There is work on supporting shorter address lengths in limited domains where
> that is sufficient.
I am not sure which work was included here. As the
I-D(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jia-intarea-scenarios-problems-addressing/
) wrote, some scenarios(if not all) are under
Hi Stewart,
Backwards compatible should be always good thing for investment protection.
Except “could put your new packet into a IPv6 parser”, another possible
approach is the last new forwarder translate new packet to IPv6 packet (may
encapsulate new fields in extension header), and passthroug
core algorithm.
Guangpeng
From: Stewart Bryant [mailto:stewart.bry...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 2, 2021 11:51 PM
To: Liguangpeng (Roc, Network Technology Laboratory)
Cc: Stewart Bryant ; Toerless Eckert
; Jiayihao ;
draft-jia-scenarios-flexible-address-struct...@ietf.org; int-area
I support adoption of this draft. Dedicated protocol number for SCHC will make
implementation more clear in the use case.
Yours,
Guangpeng
From: Int-area On Behalf Of Wassim Haddad
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 10:15 AM
To: Internet Area
Cc: intarea-cha...@ietf.org
Subject: [Int-area] Ca
