This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Havard Eidnes he at uninett.no
Mon Nov 14 23:31:44 CET 2005

> Please.  We have been through this part of the discussion half a year ago,
> and we've asked those that know (the DNS WG) and they tell us "we can't
> rely on EDNS0, and truncation is bad".  It would be very helpful if you
> could do us the favour and read up on old arguments in the archives.

Really?  I always got the sense of earlier comments (not here, though
-- I seem to recall this from IETF circles) saying that if you're
running so newfangled software that you speak IPv6 you would be
expected to also implement EDNS0.

Regards,

- Håvard

• Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?
• Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] IPv6 micro allocation or something else?

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]