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]/
[ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Marc Blanchet
marc.blanchet at viagenie.ca
Mon Nov 8 11:31:32 CET 2010
Le 10-11-08 18:15, Jan Zorz @ go6.si a écrit : > On 8.11.10 10:00, Isacco Fontana wrote: >> 6VPE (RFC 4659) >> 6PE (RFC 4798) >> >> These RFC are related to MPLS environment so I think 6PE and 6VPE >> should be >> mandatory for ISP that are using MPLS and offer ipv6 for direct internet >> connections and 6VPE for ipv6 over vpn mpls services. > > So, the correct wording inside mandatory section would be: > > - if IPv6 over MPLS and IPv6 over VPN MPLS features are requested, 6PE > or 6VPE must be supported [RFC4798, RFC4659] The contracting authority > shall specify the required protocol. does not make sense to me. 6PE and 6VPE are two ways to run IPv6 over MPLS network, but are not the only ones. Therefore, it can not be mandatory. Marc. > > Is this acceptable? > > Thnx, Jan Zorz -- ========= IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server for VoIP NAT-FW traversal: http://numb.viagenie.ca DTN Implementation: http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64-DNS64 Opensource: http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Last Call (20101117): Requirements For IPv6 in ICT Equipment
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]