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 ]
Us
us at sweet-sorrow.com
Tue Nov 9 09:39:20 CET 2010
On 11/09/2010 09:34 AM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 9.11.10 2:29, Marc Blanchet wrote: > >> I know (and have been helping providers to deploy 6PE and 6VPE). My >> point is to >> make it "mandatory" is the issue. > > The correct interpretation is "mandatory if functionality required" :) > > If you want to run 6PE or 6VPE, then it's mandatory that equipment > supports it. > > Unconditionally mandatory are RFC lines, that does not contain "if > required by". > > Does this make sense? > > /jan > > I think this is a bit redundant. It reads as "if you need, you must have it". Us
- 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 ]