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/ipv6-wg@ripe.net/

[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 ]

Michael Schneider/calispera.com michael.schneider at calispera.com
Mon Nov 8 19:51:09 CET 2010

Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote on 08.11.2010 19:02:29:
> On 8.11.10 11:31, Marc Blanchet wrote:
> > 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.

> What do you suggest? Re-wording, add additional mechanisms or move it to
> optional section?
> Basically it is written "If requested by tender initiator...", that 
makes it as
> a choice...

Hi,

LDPv6 was a dream, but only in draft status [1] this time.
So i don`t know where is a right place for it.

[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-manral-mpls-ldp-ipv6-04 

Regards Michael

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 ]