[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt

To: pekkas@netcore.fi
Subject: Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt
From: itojun@itojun.org (Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino)
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 02:45:25 +0900 (JST)
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, bob@thefinks.com, jonne.soininen@nokia.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 9 Nov 2003 19:40:32 +0200 (EET)" <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311091935040.13735-100000@netcore.fi>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0311091935040.13735-100000@netcore.fi>

> Note: the document should be clearer that configured tunnels are typically 
> point-to-point, and then you typically don't even need the link-local 
> addresses, so this becomes practically rather irrelevant..

	RFC2373/3513:
	    All interfaces are required to have at least one link-local unicast
	    address.

	i guess what you are trying to mean is "don't even need to USE the
	link-local address of the peer, or the node itself".

itojun

Follow-Ups:
- Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

References:
- Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

Prev by Date: Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt
Next by Date: Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt
Previous by thread: Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt
Next by thread: Re: NOTE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2-01.txt
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread